What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

******Official SCOTUS Thread****** (1 Viewer)

The new conservative majority asserts itself in a ruling protecting religious liberty over public health:

Supreme Court relieves religious organizations from some covid-related restrictions
By Robert Barnes

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-relieves-religious-organizations-from-some-covid-related-restrictions/2020/11/26/305f0094-2fa6-11eb-860d-f7999599cbc2_story.html

I can see both sides here but I believe Chief Roberts writing for the dissent has it correct. 

 
Shatner! said:
The new conservative majority asserts itself in a ruling protecting religious liberty over public health:

Supreme Court relieves religious organizations from some covid-related restrictions
By Robert Barnes

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-relieves-religious-organizations-from-some-covid-related-restrictions/2020/11/26/305f0094-2fa6-11eb-860d-f7999599cbc2_story.html

I can see both sides here but I believe Chief Roberts writing for the dissent has it correct. 
Click to expand...
I can’t believe some of these religious organizations are meeting in person.  Shocking to me. They aren’t using zoom?

 
Reading the story, and especially the quote from Sotomayor's dissent, it sounds like the justices are broadly in agreement that the state can impose restrictions on religious services, just that any restrictions placed on churches, synagogues, etc. need to be at least as permissive as restrictions placed on other organizations.  The main source of disagreement seems to be whether NY's restrictions satisfy that condition or not.  I agree strongly with the general principle, but I'm not informed enough about the rules in NY to even have an opinion about the particulars.

 
I believe the challenged restrictions capped the number of attendees at houses of worship while not capping certain businesses in the same zone, because people were/still are doing things like this.

 
mrip541 said:
I believe the challenged restrictions capped the number of attendees at houses of worship while not capping certain businesses in the same zone, because people were/still are doing things like this.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that was absolutely a willful disregard for the law.  While I'm for religious freedom, this is ridiculous and I believe they should fine those responsible.

It's okay to be religious and smart about viruses.  Not sure why that is so hard to understand for some religious people.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
Reading the story, and especially the quote from Sotomayor's dissent, it sounds like the justices are broadly in agreement that the state can impose restrictions on religious services, just that any restrictions placed on churches, synagogues, etc. need to be at least as permissive as restrictions placed on other organizations.  The main source of disagreement seems to be whether NY's restrictions satisfy that condition or not.  I agree strongly with the general principle, but I'm not informed enough about the rules in NY to even have an opinion about the particulars.
Click to expand...
Same, on the bolded - but they provided several examples in the opinion.

Also, did anyone else get an Airplane! vibe from all the red zone, orange zone discussion?

 
Shatner! said:
The new conservative majority asserts itself in a ruling protecting religious liberty over public health:
Click to expand...
I know this is the common headline and spin. And it get the clicks and attention it's intended to.

Isn't it more accurate to say the ruling puts churches, synagogues, and mosques on the same plane as liquor stores and bike shops?

From Justice Gorsuch: "It is time—past time—to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
I know this is the common headline and spin. And it get the clicks and attention it's intended to.

Isn't it more accurate to say the ruling puts churches, synagogues, and mosques on the same plane as liquor stores and bike shops?

From Justice Gorsuch: "It is time—past time—to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques."
Click to expand...
And, as many have pointed out, churches really aren't anything like liquor stores and bike shops.  In terms of COVID spread, they are functionally far more like arenas, movie theaters, and bingo parlors.  Are those also closed or are those open?  I actually don't know what the current NY restrictions are for movie theaters, but I would say that churches should be treated more or less identically to movie theaters, in terms of COVID restrictions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich Conway said:
And, as many have pointed out, churches really aren't anything like liquor stores and bike shops.  In terms of COVID spread, they are functionally far more like arenas, movie theaters, and bingo parlors.  Are those also closed or are those open?  I actually don't know what the current NY restrictions are for movie theaters, but I would say that churches should be treated more or less identically to movie theaters, in terms of COVID restrictions.
Click to expand...
Of course. That can be a discussion. And comparing / contrasting those should be the discussion. But "protecting religious liberty over public health" is a much sexier angle. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
I know this is the common headline and spin. And it get the clicks and attention it's intended to.

Isn't it more accurate to say the ruling puts churches, synagogues, and mosques on the same plane as liquor stores and bike shops?

From Justice Gorsuch: "It is time—past time—to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques."
Click to expand...
Get back to me when you see a thousand people partying at a liquor store.

 
mrip541 said:
Get back to me when you see a thousand people partying at a liquor store.
Click to expand...
I don't know the details of what the churches/synagogues/mosques are asking to be able to do. I could well be wrong but I don't think they're asking for "1,000 people partying". 

But again, I don't know. 

 
Rich Conway said:
And, as many have pointed out, churches really aren't anything like liquor stores and bike shops.  In terms of COVID spread, they are functionally far more like arenas, movie theaters, and bingo parlors.  Are those also closed or are those open?  I actually don't know what the current NY restrictions are for movie theaters, but I would say that churches should be treated more or less identically to movie theaters, in terms of COVID restrictions.
Click to expand...
To add a little more, I agree with you churches seem similar to a movie theater. I guess it depends too on the church. (Pre 2020, I know some churches that actually did rent out empty movie theaters on Sunday morning). 

Which brings the bigger point in my opinion - consistency.

If I owned a movie theater and wasn't allowed to be open with restrictions, I'd be pretty upset if a church was allowed to be open with similar restrictions. 

In just about every discussion I've had with people on this, it comes down to consistency. Can't dine at a restaurant indoors but you can fly in an airplane across the country. That kind of thing. And I don't know the answers. I'm not arguing for anything here. I'm pointing out the idea that most people I see discussing this are discussing the consistency aspect. 

 
Rich Conway said:
And, as many have pointed out, churches really aren't anything like liquor stores and bike shops.  In terms of COVID spread, they are functionally far more like arenas, movie theaters, and bingo parlors.  Are those also closed or are those open?
Click to expand...
Arguing that a church functioning with 10 people at mass is the same( or more) risk as a liquor store running at full staff and capacity is the same risk is absolutely ridiculous.

Thats what everybody keeps leaping over on their way to making other comparisons. It isnt regular church vs regular liquor store that is relevant for this case. 

 
I think some people are mentally picturing the Sunday morning "big" service, and that's certainly part of it. But they also discussed people praying and engaging in their faith based activities throughout the week. This is one of those decisions that make so much sense to me (and I'm an atheist) it almost seems like it should be a unanimous decision.

 
Joe Bryant said:
Rich Conway said:
And, as many have pointed out, churches really aren't anything like liquor stores and bike shops.  In terms of COVID spread, they are functionally far more like arenas, movie theaters, and bingo parlors.  Are those also closed or are those open?  I actually don't know what the current NY restrictions are for movie theaters, but I would say that churches should be treated more or less identically to movie theaters, in terms of COVID restrictions.
Click to expand...
Of course. That can be a discussion. And comparing / contrasting those should be the discussion. But "protecting religious liberty over public health" is a much sexier angle. 
Click to expand...
Gorsuch choosing to compare churches to liquor stores is, with all due respect, stupid.  Frankly, by choosing those as his comparisons, it does appear a bit like he reached his conclusion first and then worked backward to get his legal opinion.

This is the current NY state guidance for movie theaters: https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/governor.ny.gov/files/atoms/files/Movie_Theater_Detailed_Guidelines.pdf

Pursuant to the Governor’s Executive Orders, movie theaters remain closed until Friday, October 23, 2020, at which time movie theaters in counties outside of New York City that have a COVID-19 positivity rate below 2%on a 14 day rolling average and that do not currently contain any cluster zones may reopen in accordance with this guidance.
Click to expand...
Elsewhere, it notes that theaters will be allowed to reopen at 25% capacity with up to 50 people per screen.

parasaurolophus said:
Arguing that a church functioning with 10 people at mass is the same( or more) risk as a liquor store running at full staff and capacity is the same risk is absolutely ridiculous.

Thats what everybody keeps leaping over on their way to making other comparisons. It isnt regular church vs regular liquor store that is relevant for this case. 
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is making that argument.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NorvilleBarnes said:
I think some people are mentally picturing the Sunday morning "big" service, and that's certainly part of it. But they also discussed people praying and engaging in their faith based activities throughout the week. This is one of those decisions that make so much sense to me (and I'm an atheist) it almost seems like it should be a unanimous decision.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Churches/Synagogues/Mosques can be all shapes and sizes.

 
Rich Conway said:
Gorsuch choosing to compare churches to liquor stores is, with all due respect, stupid.  Frankly, by choosing those as his comparisons, it does appear a bit like he reached his conclusion first and then worked backward to get his legal opinion.
Click to expand...
We'll just disagree Gorsuch's opinion is "stupid". Thanks though. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
I know this is the common headline and spin. And it get the clicks and attention it's intended to.

Isn't it more accurate to say the ruling puts churches, synagogues, and mosques on the same plane as liquor stores and bike shops?

From Justice Gorsuch: "It is time—past time—to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques."
Click to expand...
Good point. Thank you. I agree it's a complex issue. My stance is SCOTUS shouldn't be intervening in local public health edicts surrounding a pandemic. In an ideal world entities like churches would put the lives and welfare of their congregations ahead of the need to fill the pews every Sunday voluntarily and governments would not even have to get involved. There is the issue of the health and safety of the whole community that is being threatened by large gatherings of people and this threat extends outside the circle of the congregation. I absolutely agree though that it's beyond ridiculous that all liquor stores, bars, restaurants, etc are not being shuttered in an exponential wildfire of pandemic spread. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
To add a little more, I agree with you churches seem similar to a movie theater. I guess it depends too on the church. (Pre 2020, I know some churches that actually did rent out empty movie theaters on Sunday morning). 

Which brings the bigger point in my opinion - consistency.

If I owned a movie theater and wasn't allowed to be open with restrictions, I'd be pretty upset if a church was allowed to be open with similar restrictions. 

In just about every discussion I've had with people on this, it comes down to consistency. Can't dine at a restaurant indoors but you can fly in an airplane across the country. That kind of thing. And I don't know the answers. I'm not arguing for anything here. I'm pointing out the idea that most people I see discussing this are discussing the consistency aspect. 
Click to expand...
Totally agree. We are missing consistency.

 
Rich Conway said:
Gorsuch choosing to compare churches to liquor stores is, with all due respect, stupid.  Frankly, by choosing those as his comparisons, it does appear a bit like he reached his conclusion first and then worked backward to get his legal opinion.

This is the current NY state guidance for movie theaters: https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/governor.ny.gov/files/atoms/files/Movie_Theater_Detailed_Guidelines.pdf

Elsewhere, it notes that theaters will be allowed to reopen at 25% capacity with up to 50 people per screen.

I don't think anyone is making that argument.
Click to expand...
Did Kavanaugh have an issue with liquor stores being shuttered? 🤔😉

 
Rich Conway said:
Gorsuch choosing to compare churches to liquor stores is, with all due respect, stupid.  Frankly, by choosing those as his comparisons, it does appear a bit like he reached his conclusion first and then worked backward to get his legal opinion.

This is the current NY state guidance for movie theaters: https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/governor.ny.gov/files/atoms/files/Movie_Theater_Detailed_Guidelines.pdf

Elsewhere, it notes that theaters will be allowed to reopen at 25% capacity with up to 50 people per screen.

I don't think anyone is making that argument.
Click to expand...
The case isnt about whether a full scale church operation is like a full scale movie theater operation.

Gorsuch rightly pointed out liquor stores because it emphasizes the absurdity of allowing a synagogue to only have 10, but a liquor store to allow as many as they want. 

He doesnt have to pick a perfect comparison for standard operations. 

11 vs full is literally all that matters to rule on the case. 

If you agree that 11 people in a church that can seat 1000 is safer than a full scale liquor store, then I have no idea how you could ever disagree with the ruling. 

The case wasnt whether or not they can limit at all. 

 
Could they have added a small part about allowing all liquor stores to ship?  That would allow me to skip church and the liquor store.

 
AAABatteries said:
Could they have added a small part about allowing all liquor stores to ship?  That would allow me to skip church and the liquor store.
Click to expand...
They could have packaged up 1oz bottles of wine to ship with every purchase. Even added a basket that slides across the screen that you could venmo money into. Make it so right when you put the money in the basket a picture of it went on facebook so your neighbors could see you donated. Some cross marketing opportunities were missed for sure. 

 
Comparing churches to liquor stores is beyond absurd. I can go buy a bottle of Jim Beam from a liquor store wearing a mask without speaking to a single person. Meanwhile at church services the entire congregation are singing hymns out loud 30% of the time. 

 
BladeRunner said:
Don't you mean "mostly" peaceful protests?
Click to expand...
I know, but I don't want to get sidetracked by the violence.  I would like to hear about why it's okay for thousands of people to get together and scream at one another about social justice issues, but church services are totally different.  Both of these activities are expressly protected by the first amendment, so they're constitutionally symmetrical.  If @Jackstraw and @tommyGunZ are cool with shutting down BLM protests because of covid, then I'll listen to their arguments about church services.  Otherwise they can cram it.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I know, but I don't want to get sidetracked by the violence.  I would like to hear about why it's okay for thousands of people to get together and scream at one another about social justice issues, but church services are totally different.  Both of these activities are expressly protected by the first amendment, so they're constitutionally symmetrical.  If @Jackstraw and @tommyGunZ are cool with shutting down BLM protests because of covid, then I'll listen to their arguments about church services.  Otherwise they can cram it.
Click to expand...
I'd like to hear what they have to say now too.  :thumbup:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
I would like to hear about why it's okay for thousands of people to get together and scream at one another about social justice issues, but church services are totally different.  Both of these activities are expressly protected by the first amendment, so they're constitutionally symmetrical. 
Click to expand...
Now @IvanKaramazov No need to get all rational and consistent on us.

 
I think the inconsistency is what's troubled people the most. 

Whenever I talk to folks, it's almost always along the lines of "Why is "my" thing limited but "their" thing is ok?

Which often turns into "Why is "my" thing deemed "not essential" but "their" thing is deemed "essential"?

And of course, hypocrisy is rampant on this in all areas. 

I get it. It's not an easy issue to work through. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I know, but I don't want to get sidetracked by the violence.  I would like to hear about why it's okay for thousands of people to get together and scream at one another about social justice issues, but church services are totally different.  Both of these activities are expressly protected by the first amendment, so they're constitutionally symmetrical.  If @Jackstraw and @tommyGunZ are cool with shutting down BLM protests because of covid, then I'll listen to their arguments about church services.  Otherwise they can cram it.
Click to expand...
I think even outdoor protests are a bad idea right now, but they are not apples-to-apples with indoor gatherings.

 
Joe Bryant said:
I think the inconsistency is what's troubled people the most. 

Whenever I talk to folks, it's almost always along the lines of "Why is "my" thing limited but "their" thing is ok?

Which often turns into "Why is "my" thing deemed "not essential" but "their" thing is deemed "essential"?

And of course, hypocrisy is rampant on this in all areas. 

I get it. It's not an easy issue to work through. 
Click to expand...
Who all said the other was “ok” though?  I think people can see that those out protesting felt they had a large issue to speak ip about.  And even then, as they dod when Biden win, people spoke up hoping people would do it safely.

 
Joe Bryant said:
I don't understand your question.
Click to expand...
I think about protests...Im wondering who saidnit was just ok to be out congregated, bot distanced or masked?  I think people understood it wasn’t seem as completely safe.

Saying those happened doesn't make congregating in large numbers in a church any more safe.

 
sho nuff said:
I think about protests...Im wondering who saidnit was just ok to be out congregated, bot distanced or masked?  I think people understood it wasn’t seem as completely safe.

Saying those happened doesn't make congregating in large numbers in a church any more safe.
Click to expand...
I assume the people doing whatever they are doing think it's "ok". 

When something is allowed like dining or airplane flying or liquor stores, there are authorities saying it's "ok". 

Maybe you're talking about something specific. I'm not. 

I think the inconsistency is what's troubled people the most. 

Whenever I talk to folks, it's almost always along the lines of "Why is "my" thing limited but "their" thing is ok?

Which often turns into "Why is "my" thing deemed "not essential" but "their" thing is deemed "essential"?

And of course, hypocrisy is rampant on this in all areas. 

I get it. It's not an easy issue to work through. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
I assume the people doing whatever they are doing think it's "ok". 

When something is allowed like dining or airplane flying or liquor stores, there are authorities saying it's "ok". 

Maybe you're talking about something specific. I'm not. 

I think the inconsistency is what's troubled people the most. 

Whenever I talk to folks, it's almost always along the lines of "Why is "my" thing limited but "their" thing is ok?

Which often turns into "Why is "my" thing deemed "not essential" but "their" thing is deemed "essential"?

And of course, hypocrisy is rampant on this in all areas. 

I get it. It's not an easy issue to work through. 
Click to expand...
Sure. I get that...just not those protesting are now the ones having issues woth this ruling.

But yes...I agree the inconsistency and hypocrisy is a huge problem.

 
The inconsistency and hypocrisy are only a problem in regards to the degree of acceptance or rejection of a particular restriction. I don't believe they have any bearing on the constitutionality of the restriction (fblawyerguys please correct me if I'm wrong). There's obviously no protection in the constitution for our right to pick up a bottle of wine. IMO, even a "consistent" restriction of no more than 10 people in any business would be rightly overturned for churches & synagogues.

 
tommyGunZ said:
Comparing churches to liquor stores is beyond absurd. I can go buy a bottle of Jim Beam from a liquor store wearing a mask without speaking to a single person. Meanwhile at church services the entire congregation are singing hymns out loud 30% of the time. 
Click to expand...
You forgot about the liquor store employees and the distributor employees in the stores.

Also I am assuming you can hold your breath the whole time too. 

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
The inconsistency and hypocrisy are only a problem in regards to the degree of acceptance or rejection of a particular restriction. I don't believe they have any bearing on the constitutionality of the restriction (fblawyerguys please correct me if I'm wrong). There's obviously no protection in the constitution for our right to pick up a bottle of wine. IMO, even a "consistent" restriction of no more than 10 people in any business would be rightly overturned for churches & synagogues.
Click to expand...
I haven't read this new case. But going by older precedent, laws that are generally applicable are okay under the Free-Exercise Clause even if they incidentally harm religion as long as they have a secular purpose and aren't aimed at hindering (or promoting) some religious practice.

A law saying "No gatherings of more than 10 people in any room, I don't care what kind of room it is" would probably be constitutional under that test. A law saying "No gatherings of more than 10 people in any room, except that protests and crowded liquor stores are cool" may not be constitutional as applied to churches because it's not generally applicable (there are exceptions) and certain religious practices are more disadvantaged by the law than certain non-religious practices are. The inconsistency is legally relevant.

 
parasaurolophus said:
If i had my choice of being in the middle of 20,000 tightly packed screaming people outside or if I could be the 11th person in a big church in a red zone, that's a pretty easy choice. 
Click to expand...
What if the tightly packed screaming people were screaming with excitement because each participant was being awarded a large cash prize, while the red-zone designation covering the church signaled imminent demolition? It seems your choice would be kind of bad in that case.

The point is: sometimes weird exceptions aren't worth worrying about. "Gather outside rather than inside" is a fine general principle even if you can think of quirky exceptions to it.

Edit: That was a little roundabout, sorry. I'll make the point more directly. I support you in your choice to be the 11th person in a big church rather than the 20,000th person in a screaming crowd. But would you have any preference between being in the middle of 20,000 tightly packed screaming people inside vs. being in the middle of 20,000 tightly packed screaming people outside? (Or a preference between being the 11th person in a group inside vs. being the 11th person in a group outside?) If so, inside-vs-outside isn't apples-to-apples.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
What if the tightly packed screaming people were screaming with excitement because each participant was being awarded a large cash prize, while the red-zone designation covering the church signaled imminent demolition? It seems your choice would be kind of bad in that case.

The point is: sometimes weird exceptions aren't worth worrying about. "Gather outside rather than inside" is a fine general principle even if you can think of quirky exceptions to it.

Edit: That was a little roundabout, sorry. I'll make the point more directly. I support you in your choice stated above. But would you have any preference regarding being in the middle of 20,000 tightly packed screaming people inside vs. being in the middle of 20,000 tightly packed screaming people outside? (Or a preference being the 11th person in a group inside vs. being the 11th person in a group outside?) If so, inside-vs-outside still isn't apples-to-apples.
Click to expand...
Sorry. Thought we were making comparisons relevant to the supreme court case. 

 
Peeking in to see if discussion has changed any since the election:

First post I read:  "Evil Conservatives value individual liberties over the lives of others."

Seems the exact same as it ever was.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
I was just saying that Ivan's comparison wasn't apples-to-apples because it was indoor-vs-outdoor.
Click to expand...
They're apples-to-apples in the sense that they're both unambiguously protected by the first amendment and they're both unambiguously risky from a public health standpoint.

When somebody comes staggering into this thread fresh from the Twitter front lines with their takes about evil right-wingers who want their individual rights to take precedence over public health, it's reasonable to ask where they were back in June and if they would have supported similar restrictions on mass protests.  The fact that the probability of contracting covid at a church service and the probability of contracting covid at a protest aren't exactly the same to three significant digits doesn't change the underlying tension.  

Edit: More generally, it's kind of hard to see a sober, fair-minded person getting bent out of shape over a court ruling that says "You can regulate religious services, but those regulations need to be consistent with how you treat secular activities.  You guys didn't get that balance right -- please go back and correct this."  That's the sort of on-the-margin ruling that a reasonable person might disagree with, but it's a hard thing to get angry about.  When somebody comes flying in here full-throttle, it sounds as if they're responding to a ruling that they're imaging the court made as opposed to the ruling the court actually made.  I don't know how else to process the disproportionate anger from guys like @Jackstraw and @tommyGunZ who would normally not advocate trading our essential liberties for security.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
How The Activist MSM Is Burying Alleged SCOTUS Kavanaugh Assassination Attempt (5/12/22 6:22 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
Boston
Boston
Max Power
Eric Swalwell tweets thread
2 3
Replies
132
Views
4K
Max Power
Max Power
(HULK)
Non-Partisan Funny Things in Politics
Replies
4
Views
617
dgreen
dgreen

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top