20
votes
In a 5-4 ruling, Supreme Court sides with religious groups in a dispute over Covid-19 restrictions in New York
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/26/politics/supreme-court-religious-restrictions-ruling-covid/index.html
Here is an interesting discussion of some legal and philosophical issues. (The author is a "law school grad," so take that as you will.)
Lawsplainer: COVID & the Basics of Religious Rights
The actual ruling seems pretty narrow, and yet:
And according to Cuomo it was moot already.
The New York law was a bad one that specifically opened the question of whether religious practice was subject to a discriminatory burden. Much as I never dreamed of quoting Neil Gorsuch, he expressed the problem eloquently:
There's no question that the government has the power to restrict freedom of assembly due to the "clear and present danger" of COVID-19 transmission, but it has to be done in a way that's uniformly justifiable and creates no unique burden on religious versus secular activity.
(for 'church' read 'temple' or 'synagogue' or 'mosque' or 'gurdwara' or whatever is appropriate)
His examples of places which are clearly essential to the running of society and business (lawyers, accountants, etc) aside, there's quite a difference between shops - which individuals go into, get a thing and leave relatively quickly; and places of worship where people go in and hang around doing church stuff. Some of which is singing, right? Group singing is a terrible thing to do with an aerosol-borne virus around. Not all of them, I guess. But still.
I think the comparison of churches with cinemas is perfectly valid. Those two places operate in the same way in terms of viral transmission - in one, large numbers of people go and sit in neat rows for extended periods while they're told comforting fantasies and readers can finish that terrible joke themselves. But the point is as far as SAR-CoV2 is concerned a church is more attractive than a shop. Surely this isn't a religious issue, but one of epidemiology?
It's strange he appears to consider churches businesses. If the hardware shops are closed then lots of people whose perfectly covid-safe businesses rely on them can't work. So it makes sense they're open. But churches aren't part of the interconnected machine that is the economy in the same way, they're just entertainment. Quite serious entertainment for people who take it seriously, and I appreciate there's a mental health component to churching but still - you could say the same for pubs and nightclubs. Except clubs pay taxes, so you could say that churches are even less businessy than a pub.
Finally, I don't see why a church can't work remotely like a school or theatre. Vicars have zoom just like the rest of us. I'm sure even the hardcore Jewish rabbis can find a way around using technology, they're nothing if not creative on that front.
No, I think this guy's arguments are unconvincing. I can't remember, is he one of the bad ones? I assume so from your reluctance to quote him.
I don't disagree with you, it's just that the New York law under discussion was in fact badly written and didn't express the nuances of which businesses (as in, "places open to the public") could remain open in the way that you describe.
Regulations in most places remain an utter mess because special pleading and influence bend the rules away from what the available science tells us is best epidemiological practice.
I wonder if the whole thing would have gone better had all of these restrictions been guidelines - no fines, no enforcement, just a very strong 'please do this and here's why it's the best course of action', plus a healthy dose of public shaming for facepalm moments like this wedding. It seems like about a third of Americans will automatically respond with 'fuck you' to anything the government tells them they 'must' do, on general principle.
From experience in the winery tasting room, I can say that having explicit laws on your side makes a huge difference for businesses when they have to tell customers what they can and can't do.
And honestly, it's not a third of the populace saying "fuck you" to the law, it's a much smaller vocal, rabid minority that feels comfortable with public assholery at all times, regardless of whom they're injuring (including themselves). The remainder of non-mask wearers are confused, frightened, going along with stronger-willed instigators, or just worn out.
That's kinda what Sweden tried with its herd immunity plan, but didn't work out so hot for them though. Also, if Michigan force their hands on office jobs having to work from home if they were able, I'd likely still be rolling into work, and had possibly infected others as well after my grandma got it.
They've been trying to go that route up here in Alberta, Canada and resisting putting in actual restrictions, it hasn't gone well. We're getting more cases now than the provinces that have much higher populations.
Barrett was truly bad, purely in terms of being utterly unqualified other than having strong political leanings.
Thomas and Kavanaugh had allegations of sexual assault that were ignored.
Gorsuch wasn't particularly disliked
Though crowds may form and this is to be avoided, it seems like taking all the people in a grocery store to be a gathering into a single group, like a party or a concert, isn’t quite the right way to think about it?
In both cases, there are a bunch of people all in a single, large room, with insufficient ventilation. But typical behavior and the amount of time each person spends inside are different.
As the other link I shared pointed out, a lot depends on what you’re comparing.
He's saying it's moot because the people/churches in question are already back to minimal restrictions. Rate's back down below the 3% 10-day rolling average that triggers state action creating a cluster zone. The micro-cluster approach works.
Then this happens.
If NY is below 15% statewide by mid-December it'll be a miracle.
A $15k fine is insufficient for a violation like that. Given that 7k+ people were present, that's merely a few dollar fee per head for violations of the law that endanger everyone. That's ludicrous. I understand that the politics surrounding the Hasidic community are complex, but this isn't right.
Now I can't find it (was the thread removed?) but there was a similar case with a orgy in a straight-couples swingers club that was shut down recently in New York as well. Technically wouldn't that fall under the same jurisdiction?
EDIT: found an article about the club (Caligula's which in fairness is an awesome name for a swingers club) https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/22/nyregion/sex-club-covid-sheriff-nyc.html
It seems to be a First Amendment sort of issue with Freedom of Assembly etc?