Regiomontanus
Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.
By 5-4 Vote, Supreme Court Lifts Restrictions on Prayer Meetings in Homes
I think that hair salons, theaters, gyms, etc., should not get any preferential treatment on the Covid restrictions. But I am no lawyer so I don't know who is right here, legally.
"The majority said California had violated the Constitution by disfavoring prayer meetings. “California treats some comparable secular activities more favorably than at-home religious exercise, permitting hair salons, retail stores, personal care services, movie theaters, private suites at sporting events and concerts and indoor restaurants,” the opinion said."
...
"In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, said the majority had compared in-home prayer meetings with the wrong kinds of activities.
“The First Amendment requires that a state treat religious conduct as well as the state treats comparable secular conduct,” Justice Kagan wrote. “Sometimes finding the right secular analogue may raise hard questions. But not today.
“California limits religious gatherings in homes to three households,” she went on. “If the state also limits all secular gatherings in homes to three households, it has complied with the First Amendment. And the state does exactly that: It has adopted a blanket restriction on at-home gatherings of all kinds, religious and secular alike.”
California need not, she wrote, “treat at-home religious gatherings the same as hardware stores and hair salons.”
Hmm..
It looks like a pretty unified conservative block now, for better or worse (depending on the issue, though on balance not a good thing IMHO).
And since CA is about to open things up again anyway, this decision is probably more important about what it says about the court than the issue at hand.
I think that hair salons, theaters, gyms, etc., should not get any preferential treatment on the Covid restrictions. But I am no lawyer so I don't know who is right here, legally.
"The majority said California had violated the Constitution by disfavoring prayer meetings. “California treats some comparable secular activities more favorably than at-home religious exercise, permitting hair salons, retail stores, personal care services, movie theaters, private suites at sporting events and concerts and indoor restaurants,” the opinion said."
...
"In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, said the majority had compared in-home prayer meetings with the wrong kinds of activities.
“The First Amendment requires that a state treat religious conduct as well as the state treats comparable secular conduct,” Justice Kagan wrote. “Sometimes finding the right secular analogue may raise hard questions. But not today.
“California limits religious gatherings in homes to three households,” she went on. “If the state also limits all secular gatherings in homes to three households, it has complied with the First Amendment. And the state does exactly that: It has adopted a blanket restriction on at-home gatherings of all kinds, religious and secular alike.”
California need not, she wrote, “treat at-home religious gatherings the same as hardware stores and hair salons.”
Hmm..
It looks like a pretty unified conservative block now, for better or worse (depending on the issue, though on balance not a good thing IMHO).
And since CA is about to open things up again anyway, this decision is probably more important about what it says about the court than the issue at hand.
Last edited:
