SCOTUS finds for Religious groups Virus Rules

[Grim Reaper 6]

The US Supreme Court has barred New York from imposing coronavirus restrictions on houses of worship in a ruling likely to be heralded by conservatives as a victory for religious freedoms.

Services should not be treated differently from permitted secular gatherings, said the unsigned ruling, one of the first since the appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett tipped the court's balance to the conservatives.

In a five-four split, the top US court said the measures violated the First Amendment's protection of the free exercise of religion.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-supreme-court-sides-with-religious-groups-on-virus-rules/ar-BB1bndF5

 

[toast]

In a nutshell and as per First Amendment, the protection of the free exercise of religion is above the right of physically integrity of the community. Stupid. Very.

Edited November 26, 2020 by toast

[RoofGardener]

53 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

The US Supreme Court has barred New York from imposing coronavirus restrictions on houses of worship in a ruling likely to be heralded by conservatives as a victory for religious freedoms.

Services should not be treated differently from permitted secular gatherings, said the unsigned ruling, one of the first since the appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett tipped the court's balance to the conservatives.

In a five-four split, the top US court said the measures violated the First Amendment's protection of the free exercise of religion.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-supreme-court-sides-with-religious-groups-on-virus-rules/ar-BB1bndF5

 

Interesting choice of words from MSN there. It suggests that this was a right-wing ruling; (".. tipped the courts balance towards the conservatives"..). The Supreme Court had a perceived conservative bias LONG before Amy Coney Barrett was appointed . So why mention her ? 

Nor did the Supremes 'bar New York from imposing  coronavirus restrictions on houses of worship". They merely ruled that you couldn't make a special case for churches, as opposed to other forms of secular gatherings that ARE permitted under Covid regulations. 

It is a confused and innacurate article ! 

[Grim Reaper 6]

40 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Interesting choice of words from MSN there. It suggests that this was a right-wing ruling; (".. tipped the courts balance towards the conservatives"..). The Supreme Court had a perceived conservative bias LONG before Amy Coney Barrett was appointed . So why mention her ? 

Nor did the Supremes 'bar New York from imposing  coronavirus restrictions on houses of worship". They merely ruled that you couldn't make a special case for churches, as opposed to other forms of secular gatherings that ARE permitted under Covid regulations. 

It is a confused and innacurate article ! 

Maybe so, but it is the first one to come out on the subject, when I posted it, it was not even 2 hours old. 

Here is the latest update on the Supreme Court Ruling:

https://a.msn.com/r/2/BB1bnorD?m=en-us&referrerID=InAppShare

Edited November 26, 2020 by Manwon Lender

[RoofGardener]

2 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Maybe so, but it is the first one to come out on the subject, when I posted it, it was not even 2 hours old. 

Here is the latest update on the Supreme Court Ruling:

https://a.msn.com/r/2/BB1bnorD?m=en-us&referrerID=InAppShare

ROFL.. that's even WORSE. 

"Amy Coney Barret plays decisive role in..... "

No, she did NOT. She was one of five justices who voted for the ruling. One of FIVE. 

[Grim Reaper 6]

12 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

The US Supreme Court has barred New York from imposing coronavirus restrictions on houses of worship in a ruling likely to be heralded by conservatives as a victory for religious freedoms.

Services should not be treated differently from permitted secular gatherings, said the unsigned ruling, one of the first since the appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett tipped the court's balance to the conservatives.

In a five-four split, the top US court said the measures violated the First Amendment's protection of the free exercise of religion.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-supreme-court-sides-with-religious-groups-on-virus-rules/ar-BB1bndF5

 

News Update: Cuomo calls SCOTUS decision a Political statement!!      

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/cuomo-calls-supreme-court-decision-blocking-ny-restrictions-on-religious-gatherings-a-political-statement/ar-BB1borU6

[spartan max2]

12 hours ago, toast said:

In a nutshell and as per First Amendment, the protection of the free exercise of religion is above the right of physically integrity of the community. Stupid. Very.

The ruling isn't saying that religious institutions can't be restriction by the pandemic, it's saying that it can't be restricted in a harsher way then other businesses and such.

Quote

Services should not be treated differently from permitted secular gatherings, said the unsigned ruling, 

 

Edited November 26, 2020 by spartan max2

[Grim Reaper 6]

News Update:   Archbishop of New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan applauded the Supreme Court's decision on Wednesday to block restriction on religious gatherings that had been put in place by New York to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

Our churches are essential," Dolan wrote in one tweet in which he congratulated the groups that had brought the challenges to the New York restrictions.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cardinal-dolan-hails-supreme-court-decision-on-churches-covid-19/ar-BB1boAsf

[Raptor Witness]

The premise of the lawsuit was simply that the state of confusion could not regulate faith based organizations any different than other similar businesses, like gyms and restaurants. After all, we really are talking about exercising demons and the last supper. 

There may be some differences related to the duration of the services, and the numbers gathering, but otherwise there’s not that much difference than other, similar businesses.

It’s very hard to argue against similar standards of fairness, for all. I could be wrong, but I don’t see any gross overreach here, in terms of trying to be fair to faith based businesses. 

Trump’s fervent tent meetings, held just before the election, where he took the place of the Almighty, likely helped seed the virus among large groups of deceived Christians.

 

 

[Robotic Jew]

I don't understand what makes a church "essential"?

I have no problem with the ruling other than that I guess. I've long since abandoned my hope that people would stop believing in this nonsense anyway. 

[Raptor Witness]

38 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

I don't understand what makes a church "essential"?

I have no problem with the ruling other than that I guess. I've long since abandoned my hope that people would stop believing in this nonsense anyway. 

Those who believe in an afterlife, tend to out number those who do not. You do believe in freedom, I presume?

While I can see why your argument is appealing, because I do ponder this myself sometimes, the problem is this planet seems to have an Owner, or Caretaker, Who likes admiration for His hard work.

You don’t have to have any faith to believe in that, just a reasonable amount of imagination. As miraculous as organic life is, it has many flaws. You might consider this, when pondering the number of nuclear weapons which are now pointed at this organic life.

I can separate the Creator from our religion. If admiration is part of our survival, as I suspect, then preserving the institutions for this purpose, are worthwhile and essential.

We must not confuse the imperfections inherent with organic life, with any presumed imperfections in its Creator, by the imperfect organic life.

Try saying thank thank you for a sunrise or a sunset, or something beautiful in your life, imagining that someone else made this possible, and you might be surprised what is revealed to you, my right, honorable friend.

 

[+and-then]

On 11/26/2020 at 3:05 AM, toast said:

In a nutshell and as per First Amendment, the protection of the free exercise of religion is above the right of physically integrity of the community. Stupid. Very.

These are what we call "RIGHTS".  They are not privileges to be given or taken at the whim of politicians.  That you can't grasp the demand for those rights to be upheld says a lot about your understanding of freedom.  Rights stop being rights when a government can peremptorily take them away.  

[Setton]

On 11/26/2020 at 11:52 AM, RoofGardener said:

ROFL.. that's even WORSE. 

"Amy Coney Barret plays decisive role in..... "

No, she did NOT. She was one of five justices who voted for the ruling. One of FIVE....

....out of NINE. In other words, as any year 4 will tell you, without her vote they wouldn't have the majority.

[RoofGardener]

This debate is silly. The finding just rules that churches cannot be treated differently to any other activity involving public gatherings. It you allow bars to remain open, you must allow churches to remain open. 

[RoofGardener]

1 minute ago, Setton said:

....out of NINE. In other words, as any year 4 will tell you, without her vote they wouldn't have the majority.

True, but equally true of the other four justices who voted. Why pick on Barret ? 

[Setton]

11 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

True, but equally true of the other four justices who voted. Why pick on Barret ? 

Because she was the one recently appointed under very controversial circumstances.

[RoofGardener]

1 minute ago, Setton said:

Because she was the one recently appointed under very controversial circumstances.

True.. it WAS very controversial. She was   appointed by the President, as required by the constitution, and confirmed by the Senate, as required by the constitution. A HIGHLY controversial appointment !