Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is not relevant in this case. That is how stupid you are. That case decided in a 7–2 decision, the Court ruled on narrow grounds that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips' rights to free exercise, and reversed the Commission's decision. The Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech, due to the complications of the Commission's lack of religious neutrality. EDUCATING IGNORANT CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS FOR DUMMIES Government order banning religious services or better said, ALL gatherings of people for religious services due to health and safety reasons issued by the President of the U.S., the CDC, the Surgeon General and many Governor's as well. Is the law ARBITRARY? NO! It applies to all public gatherings of any kind and religious gatherings are included in this order and not singled out. Is the law religious neutral? Yes it applies to all social gatherings not a specific religion and is being applied to all Christian, Jewish and Muslim houses of worships. Is the law REASONABLE? Yes the order was based on a national declaration of health emergency by the President of the United States, the CDC, the Surgeon General, the Corona Virus Task Force and is consistent with similar bans all around the world. THe rule was put into place with bipartisan support at all levels of government. Only fucktards dont understand this. Can you cite some law to back up the right of the government to not permit public assembly? YES I CAN! Jones v. Parmley, 465 F.3d 46, 56–57 (2d Cir. 2006) The First Amendment does not provide the right to conduct an assembly at which there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, or interference with traffic on public streets, or other immediate threat to public safety or order CASE DISMISSED!
you are acting like a stoned pre-law major who was asked to argue a case. here... we see exactly what I was talking about. Depending on the level of scrutiny the court chooses the state might have to show there were no less restrictive means to further the states interests. there are myraid cases on first amendment rights where our rights intersect with govt needs. results vary. its not one sided like you claim... again you can distinguish this case if you wish... it makes no difference. you would not only have to distinguish all the relevant case law you would have to review our history and the Constitution. It would be seen as avery important case and very narrowly drawn because the court would never want to cede too much power to the state. Not this current court anyway. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. 682 (2014), is a landmark decision[1][2] in United States corporate law by the United States Supreme Court allowing closely held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a regulation its owners religiously object to, if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest, according to the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). It is the first time that the court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief,[3] but it is limited to closely held corporations.[a] The decision does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free-exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. For such companies, the Court's majority directly struck down the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requiring employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees, by a 5–4 vote.[4] The court said that the mandate was not the least restrictive way to ensure access to contraceptive care, noting that a less restrictive alternative was being provided for religious non-profits, until the Court issued an injunction 3 days later, effectively ending said alternative, replacing it with a government-sponsored alternative for any female employees of closely held corporations that do not wish to provide birth control.[5] The ruling is considered to be part of the political controversy regarding the Affordable Care Act and freedoms in the United States.[6]
here is a far more balanced understanding of the situation. now remember my argument is that the question is open to debate... I am not arguing the court would decide in favor of Easter mass...always. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/const...efy-restrictions-gatherings/story?id=69973339 ... more at the link "The First Amendment provides express protections to houses of worship and assembly. There is no similar constitutional protection for commercial businesses; yet houses of worship and religious gatherings are signaled out for discrimination," he wrote, adding that extra precautions were taken to ensure the sanctuary was properly sanitized and the congregation adhered to social distancing guidelines. Howard-Browne went on to announce that services this weekend are canceled -- not over concerns of spreading coronavirus, but due to death threats he’s received since his arrest became public. A similar series of events played out in Texas this week, where three pastors joined a conservative activist in a lawsuit against Harris County after a local stay-at-home order barred in-person religious services from being held. Gov. Greg Abbott, also a Republican, signed a statewide shelter in place order Tuesday that carved out an exemption for houses of worship. MORE: Hobby Lobby closes its stores after defying coronavirus stay-at-home orders In both Florida and Texas, the governors’ actions essentially nullified the local orders barring religious gatherings.
False No one is going to sue because they cannot go to Easter mass and if they did it would be thrown out or not get very far. case closed. All your diarrhea is off on tangents and keep avoiding the point. If a government or forbids any social gathering including religious gatherings then it is lawful and cannot be challenged if applied across the entire state and all groups. If a governor wants to exempt regions gatherings that is his stupid right. Bit if he doesn't it is within their executive authority. No lawyer will make a valid argument to demand a church service during a pandemic.
really... no one is going to sue? I just typed in the query and this was these are the first returns. I did not read them. I am not vouching for their arguments. Nor am I picking the winner. I am saying the issue is not one sided, no matter how correct you pretend to be. Federal judge denies church's bid to hold Easter service ... www.sandiegouniontribune.com › news › courts › story › federal-jud... 5 days ago - Federal judge denies church's bid to hold Easter service despite ... The Abiding Place Ministries, a congregation of fewer than 100 based in Campo, sued San Diego ... private gatherings of more than one person was unconstitutional and ... The money will mostly go to emergency cash assistance grants to ... Three Kentuckians who violated state orders to attend Easter ... www.state-journal.com › news › three-kentuckians-who-violated-state-o... 45 mins ago - COVINGTON — Three Kentuckians who attended an Easter church service in ... state orders on mass gatherings have filed a federal lawsuit alleging Gov. ... Maryville Baptist Church held an in-person Easter service Sunday ... Why some churches are holding Easter services, defying - Vox www.vox.com › covid-19-coronavirus-us-response-trump › why-som... 3 days ago - Trump has asked people to attend services online, but some argue social ... drive-in church services for Easter weekend, but a church sued the ... Virginia man sues to reopen churches by Easter. 'We could ... www.nbc12.com › 2020/04/09 › virginia-man-sues-reopen-churches-by... 6 days ago - ... who wants to attend church on Easter is asking a judge to overturn Gov. Ralph Northam's ban on religious gatherings larger than 10 people. California churches sue Gov. Newsom over coronavirus ... www.latimes.com › california › story › three-southern-california-chur... 2 days ago - “If a Californian is able to go to Costco or the local marijuana shop or liquor ... Very few churches in California have refused to stop holding in-person services. ... On Easter Sunday, several churches held drive-in services for ... Trending in Health Open for Easter? - CalMatters calmatters.org › health › coronavirus › 2020/04 › easter-coronavirus-... 5 days ago - A conservative legal group threatens to sue two counties as the ... ensuring that congregants may attend church this Sunday, so long as they practice ... it clear that Easter services will be allowed so long as people stay six feet ... California Churches Sue State And Counties Over Social ... laist.com › 2020/04/14 › california_churches_sue_state_and_counties... 18 hours ago - Scales' church did open its doors on Easter Sunday. He says about 50 people attended a worship service, all wearing masks and sitting six feet ... 'Chilling effect on First Amendment rights': Nonprofit group ... www.washingtonexaminer.com › news › chilling-effect-on-first-amen... Apr 6, 2020 - ... will bar people from attending a drive-in evangelical Easter service. ... group threatens lawsuit if pastor can't hold drive-in Easter service ...
Lets hear your stellar explanation. ElCuloAncho has a habit for ignorance. He wears it on his sleeve.
Well with that stellar legal argument with legal precedent... poor Christians...could not go to Church on Easter due to Corona.... frickin hypocrites will not go most of the year but not all of a sudden they must go to church and watching the sermon on line is not good enough. SO skipping church a lot was ok but now it isn't? pretty arbitrary...