Roberts joins court's liberals to deny California church's lockdown challenge

[SB Shock]

Roberts has been an extreme disappointment. If the supreme court won't uphold the constitution, what hope is there for this country?

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/29/supreme-court-denies-illinois-churches-lockdown-relief-290185

[pogo]

How does the California Directive limiting attendance to 25% of maximum capacity or a max of 100 per service put an unconstitutional burden on a church. Just wondering.

[jdmee]

If mass takes an hour how can a church of 2400 or more serve all of its members on Sunday with a 100 person limit?

[SB Shock]

How does the California Directive limiting attendance to 25% of maximum capacity or a max of 100 per service put an unconstitutional burden on a church. Just wondering.

Here is what the 4 justices who dissented with Roberts and the liberal wing said:

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE GORSUCH join, dissenting from denial of application for injunctive relief.

I would grant the Church’s requested temporary injunction because California’s latest safety guidelines discriminate against places of worship and in favor of comparable secular businesses. Such discrimination violates the First Amendment.

In response to the COVID–19 health crisis, California has now limited attendance at religious worship services to 25% of building capacity or 100 attendees, whichever is lower. The basic constitutional problem is that comparable secular businesses are not subject to a 25% occupancy cap, including factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries.

South Bay United Pentecostal Church has applied for temporary injunctive relief from California’s 25% occupancy cap on religious worship services. Importantly, the Church is willing to abide by the State’s rules that apply to comparable secular businesses, including the rules regarding social distancing and hygiene. But the Church objects to a 25% occupancy cap that is imposed on religious worship services but not imposed on those comparable secular businesses.

[wufan]

I think the big problem here is that this highlights how government has selected winners and losers. It’s either too dangerous for everything or it’s not.

Granted, religious services are more akin to movies/sporting events than they are to a trip to Wal-Mart, but they are also constitutionally protected.

[ShockingButTrue]

Here is what the 4 justices who dissented with Roberts and the liberal wing said:

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH- The basic constitutional problem is that comparable secular businesses are not subject to a 25% occupancy cap, including factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries.

Pretty much common sense should apply here. Why does a church need extra precaution? Is a church more susceptible to the bat flu than Quick Trip or Dollar General? That's what they've just declared.

[wufan]

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH- The basic constitutional problem is that comparable secular businesses are not subject to a 25% occupancy cap, including factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries.

Pretty much common sense should apply here. Why does a church need extra precaution? Is a church more susceptible to the bat flu than Quick Trip or Dollar General? That's what they've just declared.

I think you can argue that it is based on prolonged and stationary contact.

[ShockingButTrue]

I think you can argue that it is based on prolonged and stationary contact.

Not trying to be argumentative, but how long are the places open I listed? How many people go through each of those businesses daily? How many people do you come into contact with weekly when you go to those places.

Why does constitutional transgression apply here? You better have some good science if you agree with it...

But then again, this is California after all.

[wufan]

Not trying to be argumentative, but how long are the places open I listed? How many people go through each of those businesses daily? How many people do you come into contact with weekly when you go to those places.

Why does constitutional transgression apply here? You better have some good science if you agree with it...

But then again, this is California after all.

There may be (is?) a difference between crossing paths briefly with multiple individuals that might be infected, and sitting next to somebody that may be infected for an hour.

I don’t know that a constitutional transgression is the correct answer, just that there is a difference in risk between your examples and a large congregation.

[ShockingButTrue]

There may be (is?) a difference between crossing paths briefly with multiple individuals that might be infected, and sitting next to somebody that may be infected for an hour.

I don’t know that a constitutional transgression is the correct answer, just that there is a difference in risk between your examples and a large congregation.

So you're implying that seconds/minutes of contact would have not effect vs. one hour, with ppe, regarding transmission? How do you know that? Serious question.

[wufan]

So you're implying that seconds/minutes of contact would have not effect vs. one hour, with ppe, regarding transmission? How do you know that? Serious question.

Viral load appears to be a major factor in illness. Prolonged exposure to such a viral load is more likely to result in illness vs multiple low loads.

Let’s say your chance of exposure is 1/1000, and you have 1000 people in your congregation. One person is sick. The people sitting within 6 foot of that person are going to get one hour of exposure.

Let’s say that 1000 people enter wal-mart every hour (I’m sure it is less than 1000, but let’s suppose). 1 person is spreading the virus at a time. You, walking through the store are not likely to be exposed for more than 10 minutes to this individual, meaning you would get 1/6 the viral load and would be less likely to get ill.