In the latest skirmish between public health and religious liberty, a group of evangelical churches are suing Governor Gavin Newsom of California, claiming that his ban on indoor singing is infringing on their freedom of religion.
“To prohibit group singing is to effectively prohibit corporate Christian worship,” reads the lawsuit, which was filed earlier this week. “The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits Defendants from abridging Plaintiffs’ right to free exercise of religion.”
The new California guidelines went into effect on July 1st and explicitly forbid singing indoors for houses of worship and enforce mandatory mask-wearing to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
Churches Hellbent on Opening
The lawsuit comes as churches continue to be major coronavirus hotspots. That’s all despite many churches going fully online during the pandemic, livestreaming their regular Sunday worship right into parishioners’ homes.
That’s an approach even Pope Francis endorsed, repeatedly signaling his approval of stay-at-home orders to stop the spread of coronavirus.
But many churches are determined to remain open with minimal impact to the regular service, with some church leaders going as far as getting arrested for their defiance of public health measures. One church in Georgia even reopened prematurely, only to have to shut down again after much of their congregation contracted COVID.
Still, in-person worship is returning to many states, including California, with some precautions - like the no-singing policy.
So, do the trio of churches suing Gov. Newsom have a case?
A Song of Ice and Fever
The lawsuit claims that singing is an integral part of Christian worship that cannot be infringed. Scripture is quoted in the lawsuit. Per the filing:
“The book of Ephesians in the Bible commands that Plaintiffs “[b]e imitators of God,” and “live a life of love, just as Christ loved us . . . be filled with the Holy Spirit. Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything.” Ephesians 5:1-2, 18-20.”
They also say that churches are being unfairly targeted for a singing ban, noting that singing isn’t banned in “fitness centers, day camps, hotels, shopping malls, childcare centers, schools, or music, tv and film productions.”
Of course, singing isn’t exactly commonplace in these locations.
Ultimately, it seems, this lawsuit may not have much ground to stand on. The Supreme Court already ruled that the state of California can indeed cap large church gatherings in the name of public health during an international pandemic. It’s not a stretch to think that any court would support other common-sense safety precautions for churches in the age of COVID.
Where do you stand? Is singing an essential religious activity? Should it be allowed to continue regulation-free, even if doing so puts lives at risk?
141 comments
-
William Mitchell
If we let them take away our voices to God. Next, they will take away our right to worship.
-
Lionheart
Yes, you should be able to worship any deity that you feel good about even though there isn’t any demonstrable evidence any are real, that shouldn’t matter. Freedom to worship should always be a right because many people need it.
🦁❤️
-
-
Daniel Gray
"What do you really think that everyone here on this blog is blind and incapable of reading and comprehending." Sorry T Kosse that would be for your posts.
-
Ilmenheru Terikson
ever notice how your posts never get thumbs ups, and those you argue with usually have at least a couple? Yeah its not because anyone here thinks your a babbling baboon.
-
Daniel Gray
Ever notice I dont care about a thumbs up as much as you seemingly do? The truth seemingly hurts you as I dont need adoration or anything such as this. I speak the truth and let the chips fall where they may. I dont suck up to the popular way of thinking that the cancel culture has forced on us. Maybe its you who should rethink what they are saying. ever thought of that? or is it that YOU are the babbling baboon?
-
-
-
Daniel Gray
However there was never a SCOTUS decision on this ruling, sorry but there was two actually with the latest being the Little Sisters of the Poor decision just this year.
-
Daniel Gray
must be mad that every time you open your mouth you get proved wrong
-
Daniel Gray
add two and two together and come up with four. SCOTUS has already stated that you cant much about with a persons religion. So why do you keep trying to claim otherwise?
-
Darrell Hebert
Obviously there are a lot of non Christians that are on this string, the legal issue will be the disparate treatment. When it is OK for mobs to rob, loot, assault, burn down, and kill in the name of “peaceful protest” and liberal city/state governments Let them with tacit approval, and then write in an edict that there is no singing in church, it doesn’t make sense. Or does it, to them.
My church does request that distancing and masks be employed. The other churches around here are the same. People in churches are very responsible with precautions,
not so much with the riots... but I did see video of one guy wearing a mask as he shot an African American business owner.
🇺🇸 Darrell
Q- why do we have a resurgence of covid where the riots ( peaceful protests) took place? Why is this group is it 20-30 year olds ? Next the anarchists will return to their basements and give it to mom and dad too.
-
Robert A Stiff
Darrell Herbert: You watch too much Faux News.
-
Jeff White
Why the Black Lives Matter Protests Didn’t Contribute to the COVID-19 Surge https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.healthline.com/health-news/black-lives-matter-protests-didnt-contribute-to-covid19-surge&ved=2ahUKEwjOg9TovI7rAhWKHM0KHUlhB2oQFjAAegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw2s4Gp_t5ouQBU7NEtBHHwk&cshid=1596988673042
-
-
Harry Charles Crowell
OUR COUNTRY HAS BECOME VERY CLOSE TO BECOMING AN ANTI-GOD COUNTRY. WE HAVE CONTINUED TO VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS AND THEY HAVE EVOLVED INTO SOCIALISTS AND SOCIALISTS ARE ANTI GOD ! Our PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS LEADERSHIP, ARE QUITE WELL RELATED TO OUR AMERICAN HERITAGE WHICH IS "ONE COUNTRY UNDER GOD" All the democrat candidates are followers of the democrat leaders and are supporting all the demonstrations that are destroying our country, city by city and statue by statue. Today I see our country being led into looking like the middle east countries with all buildings, homes, cities being destroyed and people left out to starve or be killed by the leaders and their armies. Think carefully before you vote
-
Robert A Stiff
This site is not supposed to be political, but so often is. So I will close my comments by breaking the rule and stating that Trump is the most godless, corrupt man-child to ever sit in the Oval Office. He and his Republican enablers have single-handedly brought this once-powerful and respected country low. He, because of his inept and ignorant handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, is personally responsible for the horrendous death toll in this country. His cult of followers are Ignorant, blind and incapable of rational thought. And with that, I'm moving on.
-
Lionheart
H1N1 number of cases in the US 60.8 million. PANIC LEVEL: Zero. China was blamed and everyone accepted it.
COVID-19 number of US cases 4.6 million (as of 8/1/20). PANIC LEVEL; Mass Hysteria US closed to limit casualties. Trump was blamed, and also accused of not doing enough.
🦁❤️
-
Ilmenheru Terikson
Not even remotely comparable in anyway, but well whataboutism is default mode for our naz....erhm nationalists who goose step eagerly for their wannabe king.
-
Lionheart
Yes I agree, it’s hard to compare 60.8 million cases under Obama and 4.6 million cases under Trump. It’s not even close is it?
🦁❤️
-
-
-
-
-
Minister Charles
I would say to let them worship the way they want to. If certain members choose not to sing inside church, so be it. But, don't criticize the ones that do want to. I, personally, believe that it's an attack on Christianity, specifically the churches.
-
Robert N Clarkson
There already is significant data that group singing, especially a church choir is a high risk activity for spread of respiratory disease.... yet ignorant folks, yes uneducated about both Jesus teaching and the Bible, and about this particular disease and it’s pathology, insist upon not making any alterations in their personal lifestyles. Then openly blame the elected officials for this pandemic. We would be laughing at such self centered stupidity in a fictional motion picture instead of arguing for it on here. As if millennials don’t already have enough excuses to avoid church and religion. Churches are struggling, so instead of looking after the flock and protecting it, why not put them at risk and drive the sensible ones away completely?
Mark 13 Amplified Bible (AMP) 14But when you see the abomination of desolation mentioned by Daniel the prophet standing where it ought not to be--[and] let the one who reads take notice and consider and understand and heed [this]--then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
-
Daniel Gray
Sorry but no. The recent SCOTUS decisions clearly say that you cant muck about with a persons religion, meaning if they use song in their worship then they are protected by the 1st amendment
-
T Kosse`
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Continue because of a limit of 5000 words
Given the gravity of the dispute and the substantial clari-
4 ZUBIK v. BURWELL Per Curiam fication and refinement in the positions of the parties, the parties on remand should be afforded an opportunity to arrive at an approach going forward that accommodates petitioners’ religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women covered by petitioners’ health plans “receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.” Id., at 1. We anticipate that the Courts of Appeals will allow the parties sufficient time to resolve any outstanding issues between them. The Court finds the foregoing approach more suitable than addressing the significantly clarified views of the parties in the first instance. Although there may still be areas of disagreement between the parties on issues of implementation, the importance of those areas of potential concern is uncertain, as is the necessity of this Court’s involvement at this point to resolve them. This Court has taken similar action in other cases in the past. See, e.g., Madison County v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y., 562 U. S. 42, 43 (2011) (per curiam) (vacating and remanding for the Second Circuit to “address, in the first instance, whether to revisit its ruling on sovereign immunity in light of [a] new factual development, and—if necessary— proceed to address other questions in the case consistent with its sovereign immunity ruling”); Kiyemba v. Obama, 559 U. S. 131, 132 (2010) (per curiam) (vacating and remanding for the D. C. Circuit to “determine, in the first instance, what further proceedings in that court or in the District Court are necessary and appropriate for the full and prompt disposition of the case in light of the new developments”); Villarreal v. United States, 572 U. S. ___ (2014) (vacating and remanding to the Fifth Circuit “for further consideration in light of the position asserted by the Solicitor General in his brief for the United States”). The Court expresses no view on the merits of the cases. In particular, the Court does not decide whether petitioners’ religious exercise has been substantially burdened,
Cite as: 578 U. S. ____ (2016) 5 Per Curiam whether the Government has a compelling interest, or whether the current regulations are the least restrictive means of serving that interest. Nothing in this opinion, or in the opinions or orders of the courts below, is to affect the ability of the Government to ensure that women covered by petitioners’ health plans “obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA approved contraceptives.” Wheaton College v. Burwell, 573 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op., at 1). Through this litigation, petitioners have made the Government aware of their view that they meet “the requirements for exemption from the contraceptive coverage requirement on religious grounds.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 2). Nothing in this opinion, or in the opinions or orders of the courts below, “precludes the Government from relying on this notice, to the extent it considers it necessary, to facilitate the provision of full contraceptive coverage” going forward. Ibid. Because the Government may rely on this notice, the Government may not impose taxes or penalties on petitioners for failure to provide the relevant notice. The judgments of the Courts of Appeals are vacated, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered
-
Carl Bernard Elfstrom
I think we deserve a lot more than $1200.00 just for putting up with their political nonsense (abuse). Can we file a suit as the American people vs the U.S. government ?
-
T Kosse`
You can add my name to that.
-
-
The Heretic Hour
The Evil one is everywhere including standing behind Pulpits. Body is to be treated as a Temple. Keep the body healthy!
-
Burma Dene Dugger
I do believe that God inhabits the praise of His people. However, I also believe that He expects us to be responsible and obey the Law of the Land that we live in. That being said, if they wear a mask and are 6 feet apart, what's the big deal if they sing? Persons with risk factors should be staying home and the others should take personal responsibility if they choose to "risk it". BTW, we should hold our discussions in a respectful way. We don't all worship the same way, or the same God. I worship Jesus, but I won't disrespect you if you worship someone else. So let's not disrespect people with differing views.
-
T Kosse`
First of all it's highly contagious airborne virus, which means it floating around in the air it not just staying in one spot, plus you're not able to see it so you don't know where exactly about it is floating. Yes outside there less of a risk contracting the virus, than inside where the risk is much higher. But either way there still a risk especially when you have a group of people together in one spot for longer then normal time span.
-
T Kosse`
You have no way of knowing who might have it and who might not, because a person could have the virus, but show no signs of being ill, so he or she could be standing next you and neither one you are aware that he or she has the virus.
-
T Kosse`
Coronaviruses derive their name from the fact that under electron microscopic examination, each virion is surrounded by a “corona,” or halo.
-
-
Carl Bernard Elfstrom
I sometimes have to take a break from this blog, brother (as would probably do us all good to do).However, I never stay gone long, and am back.
-
T Kosse`
Yeah you're right about that,especially when it come to that asinine D.G.
-
Daniel Gray
why Because I tell truth and fact and you cant refute it and then throw a hissy fit and call names?
-
T Kosse`
Then what do you call what you're doing now You don't like what someone says about you. You then throw a hissy fit and call other people names. Just like a little two year old child.
-
T Kosse`
What truth and what fact are you talking about So far I haven't seen any from you yet.
-
Brien
Lol Daniel, you are so confused. T meets your ignorance with facts. I am the one that calls you a butthead 😀
-
Daniel Gray
the only confusion here is you since you obviously dont accept reality and fact
-
-
-
-
-
T Kosse`
Carl Bernard Elfstrom where are you? I miss your sense of humor.
-
Brien
Please everyone this discussion requires SCIENCE, not politics, not religious beliefs, SCIENCE. Your political view will NOT help battling this disease. Your mythical beliefs will NOT cure this disease. SCIENCE is the only thing that will combat this disease. LISTENING to doctors will get you the only information that will help EVERYONE. Please, just this one time, stop being a lemming and listen to what the DOCTORS are saying.
-
Brien
No woodrow, this is reality. It is not a political discusion that people want to turn it into. Get your heads out of your butts and pay attention to what the doctors are telling you.
-
T Kosse`
But they like having their head up their butts, It so warm and cozy, plus they don't have to face logic, common sense, facts and reality. They can be one with their god. They can praise their lord Hallelujah! Do I hear amen!
-
Brien
Lol, I will give you an amen on that 😀
-
Robert A Stiff
AMEN! AMEN and HALLELUYAH!
-
-
-
The Rev. William C, Millhouse
I think that all that these groups are really interested in doing is assembling in large groups so that they can pass the plate. They only worship their tax free income. Their god is the almighty dollar.
-
Brien
The only type of people that are willing to place their beliefs above other lives are not religious, they are toxic and are the very definition of the evil that they say they are against. If you are one of these toxic people, own it. Don't hide behind some outdated holier than thou masquerades.
-
arawngraalrd
The Science issfluid, and Law can't keep pace. We should be kept informed, and allowed to evolve as we can, must,or may.
-
The Rev. Dr. Marion Ceruti
I support the Dillon Law Group's efforts to combat tyranny and fight against state governors and county mayors who violate the constitution. Singing is an important part in the religious services of not only Christian churches, but also in services conducted by Jews, Muslims, and Sikhs. Some orthodox groups will go on singing anyway. The main point of the suit is that if singing is not prohibited elsewhere in public venues, it also cannot be prohibited in churches. It is clearly a case of discrimination and government interfering with religion, which is unconstitutional and cannot be tolerated in a free society. All of these useless and idiotic edicts from tyrants have nothing to do with the Chi Comm virus and everything to do with making people miserable with the hope of defeating President Donald Trump in the election. We must remember that our freedoms and liberties were difficult to obtain but easy to lose.
-
Brien
You lost me when you put your beliefs above other lives.
-
The Rev. Dr. Marion Ceruti
Where is the scientific proof that singing in church causes death? Has anyone in your family died because he or she sang in church? I am not putting my beliefs above other lives. You have misunderstood and missed the point. No governor of a state can put his or her desire for tyranny above the constitution of the United States of America.
-
Brien
Why do you assume this is tyranny? Where are you getting YOUR proof? Do you honestly think that ANY politician wants to close the economy in his/her state? I am listening to what the doctors are saying, you know, the people who are SCHOOLED in these things. You are listening to a mythical belief, not trained in these things. I am sorry, I stand by my comment. I am tired of people putting EVERYONE in danger because of a perceived inconvenience. Your position on this is frightening because you would rather tempt death than make an adjustment to your behaviour. I would not care if you were deciding this for yourself, but this particular decision can effect everyone around you. You may not directly cause death, but indirectly added with all the other behaviour the chances greatly increase that you will. Have you ever seen a perfectly healthy child placed on a ventilator because they struggle to breath? No? You should go have a look sometime, and then realize your position helps create that situation. I am sorry to be so blunt, but this is NOT a game.
-
T Kosse`
Are you really that stupid, that you can't figure it out for yourself "The Rev. Dr. Marion Ceruti" That when you have a large group of people close together increases the odds of the risk of getting infected, by a highly contagious airborne virus You care more about your DAMN RIGHTS then you care about other people lives. And you call yourself "THE REV". You consider yourself such a good Godly Christian. You make me sick and disgusted!
-
-
-
-
Rebecca L Tice
Wow.... I cannot believe that none of the Christians on this page have discussed the fact that Jesus warned Christians that they would be persecuted. [that's sarcasm....]
Are the Christians on this site crying about not being able to praise God in song?????
Disciples in the church.... when it was new.... just forming.... After Jesus had been here.... and during the time when Paul was preaching to the descendants of Jacob [the one God renamed Israel] and the Gentiles..... praising God could get a body thrown in prison....
A guy named Stephen was stoned to death for praising God....
Even Paul was beaten so severely by his own people that he was left for dead outside the city gates so the animals and birds would dispose of his body... a final insult.... but his buddies took him in and nursed him back to health.....
So some Christians are upset because a pandemic might keep them from singing.... and they are going to the government to straighten it out? But they don't want the government messing in the church's affairs..... Sounds a lot like what was going on during the days of the early church....
Perhaps the funds used to pay the lawyers to sue the government could have been used to feed those who haven't been able to find work..... AND..... perhaps the time in the service that would normally be used to sing could be used as a time of prayer..... maybe the time would be better spent making sure that those who need our help are on our hearts....
Jesus said there are really only two commandments..... Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul.... and Love others as you would want them to love you...... that's it... there is no commandment to sing or sue..... not in the Gospels.....
-
Lionheart
Isn’t Jesus supposed to be the god of the Old Testament who advocated slavery and stoning people to death?
🦁❤️
-
Carl Bernard Elfstrom
Those christians are a bunch of cry-babies! Let them sing and die from the virus, if they want. Anything to rid the world of Christianity, which is on its way out anyway.
-
Rebecca L Tice
Nope.... Jesus wasn't one for stoning people.... That's a human invention.
God does the natural stuff.... like earthquakes, meteor storms, river diversion, and of course causing the sun to back up...... Jesus talked to the waves and the wind.... they obeyed Him.
God does stuff that humans can't do... Jesus does stuff in spite of what humans would do.
According to Jesus.... you can live a wonderful life following only two rules [or commandments]..... Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul..... and Love others as you want to be loved.
Jesus was in control of the human crap.... I'm sure at times [like when they were going to throw Him over the cliff in Nazareth] Jesus was tempted to bring on an earthquake to straighten them out.... but He maintained control of the God ability because He understood the human side of the issue.
Nope.... the Old Testament God wanted the descendants of Abraham to stick to themselves..... so they wouldn't be tempted to worship manmade gods.... like money.
So no..... Jesus didn't want anyone to be enslaved or stoned.....
-
Lionheart
I’m so glad he didn’t take after his dad, who obviously had anger management issues.
🦁❤️
-
T Kosse`
That very true
-
-
-
-
Woodrow
Amen, BYITNOJ (bless you in the name of Jesus)
-
-
Rev. Jonathan Peebles
OK lets be selfish and not worry about how others feel unsafe and only think about yourselves and your religion. Also it clearly states in your bible that he commands you to obey mans laws as well as Gods law so therefore you are disobeying him by singing in public. This has nothing to do with your religious rights. I am not able to see my favorite band that happens to be playing near my birthday but I am not suing because of it. NO one is aloud to be with out a mask christian or not; your religion does not give you special privileges so get over it...
-
Woodrow
Nice guilt trip. Really?
-
T Kosse`
No YOU should get a grip on reality. Woodrow YOU have no right to impose your views, your morals or your religious belief on another, And you or anyone else especially DO NOT have a right to infect others simply because of your willful selfishness and stupidity.
-
-
-
Vern Dee Wall
The mistake is the assumption that necessity trumps rights. Once that is accepted, you don't have rights any more.
-
Brien
The mistake is thinking your imaginary discomfort is worth someone else's life.
-
-
Johnny Mac
We here in NC have sung our songs to proclaim our lives matter to GOD and that man can go to the other place. We will continue to sing during this false pandemic for the glory of our LORD and KING! Honor your LORD GOD and sing Hallelujah to HIM! Especially if you want to go to Heaven! Amen
-
Tom Thackrey
You may meet your God much sooner if you sing indoors in a group without masks. By all means sing, just do it outside and farther apart.
Clinging to the belief that this pandemic is somehow false is the work of the devil.
-
Woodrow
Another guilt trip, Really?
-
-
Ilmenheru Terikson
false pandem.... yep uhm ok not even worth it at this point. Go cover yourself in the blood of Jesus and then walk into a volcano. Then come back and tell us how well it protected you mkay.
-
Brien
As for you, your toxic behavior is helping to kill people. What does your God think of that?
-
T Kosse`
Does NC stand for Nut Case or Nescience Cretinous. Nah the devil has some standards, he wouldn't want to be seen with a drooling, inbred, imbecile like him.
-
Robert A Stiff
By all means, congregate closely and sing to your heart's content. The sooner the human gene pool is cleansed of such stupidity, the better.
-
-
Lionheart
It’s California, governed by Democrats, so whats new? Rioting is okay though!
🦁❤️
-
Brien
No, my friend, rioting is not ok and needs to be dealt with. But helping to spread a lethal disease is also not ok.
-
Lionheart
I agree. The Democrat States, and Governors have a lot to answer for. Even Nancy Pelosi was trying to invite people to China Town when not realizing the seriousness of the virus while Trump was banning people coming into our country in an attempt to quell the spread.
🦁❤️
-
Robert A Stiff
TROLL ALERT: Lionheart is back.
-
-
-
-
Minister Mike
I say let 'em sing, and make sure the church is fenced off from the rest of society. until the pandemic is over.
-
Clay Serenbetz
In my opinion, the Churches are correct. The State of California either needs to ban singing in all public places or none. The Constitution does not allow the state to treat citizens unequally. Why a Church wants to endanger the lives of its Choir members or its Congregation is beyond me. There is probably a good chance that the Congregants are Evangelicals who support the Donald, so, in my opinion, you reap what you sow.
-
Brien
Again, why should my family have to suffer an outbreak of a lethal disease because of someone else's beliefs?
-
-
Daniel Gray
Has California not learned anything from the Supreme Court smack down of the Mayor of NYC and the Gov of NY? Or the Gov of Michigan? You CANNOT violate a persons religion and if singing praise is part of same, then there is nothing they can do to ban it.
-
T Kosse`
Religious freedom protects people’s right to live, speak, and act according to their beliefs peacefully and publicly. It protects their ability to be themselves at work, in class, and at social activities.
Ok, that sounds good, but does such “freedom” allow people to do whatever they want under the cover of religion?
Well, that answer is no. The Supreme Court has said the federal government may limit religious freedom – but only when it has a “compelling interest” to do so in order to protect the common good and limit people’s ability to harm others.
-
Daniel Gray
Supreme Court has ruled on this over and over and over again and the most recent one was the Little Sisters of the Poor decision. So the answer is up to and not including human sacrifice, then yea they pretty much can. I mean even the SCOTUS said animal sacrifice was ok down in florida
-
T Kosse`
The Supreme Court has said the federal government may limit religious freedom – but only when it has a “compelling interest” to do so in order to protect the common good and limit people’s (humans) ability to harm others. (humans)
do so in order to protect the common good and limit people’s ability to harm others (human)
Your statement: So the answer is up to and not including human sacrifice.......(and not including human sacrifice)
The coronavirus 19 who does it affect: Everyone (Humans) is at risk for getting COVID-19 if they (humans) are expose to the virus. Some people (humans) are more likely than others (humans) to become severely ill, which mans that they (human) may require hospitalization, intensive care, or a ventilator to help them (human) breathe, or they (humans) may even die
So the coronavirus 19 affect: Everyone (Humans). So I guess to you human sacrifice is okay just to prove the point that you're right and everyone else is wrong
-
Daniel Gray
Nope sorry in the little sisters of the poor and the smackdown of the mayor of NYC and the Gov of NY State clearly show you are mistaken
-
Daniel Gray
An the little sisters of the poor case say that your "limit religious freedom" is a myth. And spamming the thread isnt going to make you any less incorrect.
-
Brien
Daniel, it is people like you that will doom mankind. I refuse to allow you or any other nutcase put my family in danger simply because you cannot behave like a reasonable adult. If your religious beliefs or anyone elses beliefs cause harm to my family I will respond in kind and not lose one wink of sleep doing so. I and many others are simply sick and tired of you ridgid zealots and the way we figure it, your beliefs will soon be flushed out of our system. You are free to chose for yourself, but when your ignorant choices endanger others that is when your choices end. You speak alot of rights, guess you don't realize that amendments can be made by the people to minimize the danger that you and others promot. But even beyond that, when push comes to shove, people will chose LIFE over your inconvenience.
-
Daniel Gray
Sorry but no. You have the right to choose how you want to live your life but you DO NOT have the right to demand that anyone else must live their life according to your wishes. Sorry to bust your bubble but then again maybe you should not be posting hyperbole here when it is so easily proved wrong.
-
Brien
And again, you did not read the post. Here it is in a nutshell: You may make whatever choices you wish to make as long as your ignorance does not cause harm to others. When that happens, society as a whole will shut you down. You can stamp your feet like a spoiled child but that will do nothing more than to solidify your image as dangerous to yourself and others. Really, the only reason I reply to you is to prove to others that there really are ignorant, self centered people who care nothing for anything else save their own self-centered desires. Please, continue your rants. You are a shining example of what not to be.
-
Daniel Gray
Yes I did read your post, and you are making demands on how peopleshould live their lieves, and sorry you have no authority to make such a demand.
-
Brien
And yet again, you did not read the post. You wish to remain ignorant. I wish to be done with you.
-
Ilmenheru Terikson
Bud DG is as you said a Zealot, there is no point even engaging with such mentally ill people. Eventually we will start treating them as such and require they attend therapy and get on medication to keep them from being a threat to society as a whole.
-
Brien
I agree with you.
-
-
-
-
T Kosse`
You're comparing an animal sacrifice to a pandemic, how are the two related.
-
Daniel Gray
the animal sacrifice is a part of a religion. How you can say the two are the same is beyond knowledge to anyone but you.
-
T Kosse`
No you're the one that saying they are the same I'm saying the two are not related to each other.
-
Daniel Gray
The SCOTUS dont see it that way.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Brien
Why should my family or friends have to suffer potentiall lethal outbreaks of a killer virus because of someone's beliefs? Why do you insist that this is ok? If someone broke into your home and did harm to you or your family would you just sit there and allow it?
-
Woodrow
Another guilt trip. Really?
-
Brien
If you don't care about your family and friends that is on you. Don't lay your broken standards on me.
-
Daniel Gray
How exactly did you jump from singing in a church to someone breaking into your home?
-
T Kosse`
he made what is called am analogy
noun, plural a·nal·o·gies.
a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump. similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine. Biology. an analogous relationship.
What is an example of an analogy? An analogy is saying something is like something else to make some sort of explanatory point. For example, “Life is like a box of chocolates—you never know what you're gonna get.” You can use metaphors and similes when creating an analogy. A simile is a type of metaphor
Good analogies are familiar. They express an abstract idea in terms of a familiar one. The odometer and speedometer on a car are a good analogy for a function and its derivative, because we all understand how speedometers work, but maybe not calculus.
What makes a successful analogy? A good analogy is a compromise between two conflicting goals: familiarity and representativeness. ... That latter fact is important when creating analogies for yourself. Concreteness is good, but as long as you understand the analogous domain well, anything works. Good analogies are also representative.
-
Daniel Gray
no its called jumping to conclusions
-
Brien
Wow, please take your head out of whatever it is buried in. The conclusion you accuse me of jumping to as far as covid is concerned has already happened, past tense. You seem to be missing informed. Look up the CURRENT death totals just in this country. Or just continue with your head planted underground.
-
Daniel Gray
wow how about you take your own advice or forever have your breath smell like used suppositories
-
T Kosse`
And just how would you know that his breath would smell like used suppositories? Is it from personal experience? Daniel Gray
-
Daniel Gray
No I stated fact, you state foolishness
-
T Kosse`
How old are you really? Daniel Gray the reason I ask is because you sound like a two year old child.
You talk like one (No I stated fact, you state foolishness)
-
Daniel Gray
well we know that you cant be more then 20 with all the ignorant replies you have placed here.
-
T Kosse`
Why thank you 20 not a bad age to be at.
-
Daniel Gray
maybe we should be asking you the same questions as I dont thing 5 year olds should be allowed here
-
Daniel Gray
thats what your friends and family tell you each time you open your mouth as you constantly get it wrong
-
T Kosse`
You sound like you're starting to go off the deep end Daniel Gray You're becoming too obsessed with this.
-
T Kosse`
and I know just how you will reply You will say it not you who going off the the deep end but I who is off the deep end and is too and becoming too obsessed that just the way a child would replay.Daniel Gray
-
-
-
-
-
-
T Kosse`
US courts almost always deferred to public health authorities that have deprived individuals of their liberty in the name of public health. One US state high court declared at the beginning of the twentieth century that, “[i]t is unquestionable that the legislature can confer police powers upon public officers for the protection of the public health. The maxim Salus populi suprema lex is the law of all courts in all countries. The individual right sinks in the necessity to provide for the public good” (Parmet, 1985). Even more remarkably, a plenary grant of authority was still found to be constitutional in the 1960s. In upholding the detention of a person with tuberculosis pursuant to a statute that provided virtually no procedural protections, a California appellate court declared in 1966 that, “[h]ealth regulations enacted by the state under its police power and providing even drastic measures for the elimination of disease...in a general way are not affected by constitutional provisions, either of the state or national government.”
-
Daniel Gray
And the US Supreme Court said NO THEY CANT in the church of lukumi babalu aye v. city of hialeah 508 U.S. 520 113 S. Ct. 2217; 124 L. Ed. 2d 472 1993. Their religion is Santeria and it calls for animal sacrifice. Hialeah tried to stop it and the Florida state Court agreed, right up till it hits the SCOTUS after passing through the 11th US District Court and Floridas decision was yet again overturned.
https://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/12/us/supreme-court-animal-sacrifice-court-citing-religious-freedom-voids-ban-animal.html
So sorry but there is no state court that can overturn any religious happenings nor can they ban them as Gov Coumo and Mayor Bill de Blasio of NYC found out when SCOTUS slapped them down so hard their great grandkids will still be bouncing...and it was a 9-0 decision.
-
T Kosse`
Freedom of Religion does not give you right to practice your religion, if it may cause mental or physical harm to another.
Summary: In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a First Amendment religious free exercise challenge brought by a Florida Santerían church in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. However, Lukumi may be the most misunderstood legal precedent in recent history. The decision is often cited for the proposition that religious practitioners have a constitutional right to engage in animal sacrifice. This is far from the truth. Lukumi was decided in a unique context, and its holding was not based on the merits of animal sacrifice. This article will demonstrate that Lukumi does not force government to acquiesce to animal sacrifice, or the “litter” it creates.
The Lukumi decision reiterates a fundamental First Amendment principle: legislators cannot persecute religious conduct through methods overt or disguised. In its final paragraph, the Court admonished: “The Free Exercise Clause commits government itself to religious tolerance . . . all officials must pause to remember their own high duty to the Constitution and the rights it secures.” [153]
However, Lukumi stops far short of declaring a constitutional right to sacrifice animals. The challenged ordinances failed because they were found to be not neutral and not generally applicable. The Court found the historical record of the legislation, coupled with ordinance’s numerous exemptions, revealed the aim of the ordinances was to persecute a religious practice. If the ordinances had instead been neutral in their aims, and largely applicable to both secular and religious conduct, strict scrutiny would never have been invoked. The ordinances would then have withstood the free exercise challenge, the Court no doubt finding that protection of public health and prevention of animal cruelty were legitimate public interests to justify the laws.
The reason the court ruled in church favor is because The challenged ordinances failed because they were found to be not neutral and not generally applicable.
However if the ordinances had instead been neutral in their aims, and largely applicable to both secular and religious conduct, strict scrutiny would never have been invoked. The ordinances would then have withstood the free exercise challenge, the Court no doubt finding that protection of public health and prevention of animal cruelty were legitimate public interests to justify the laws
They can not claim they are being discriminated against since the law don't just target religious groups, but it applies to everyone equally it is applicable to both secular and religious conduct,
I have a copy of the whole court case.
-
Brien
I read your posts and I thank you for them. Peace.
-
T Kosse`
You are very welcome Brien
-
-
-
T Kosse`
"compelling interest” to do so in order to protect the common good and limit people’s ability to harm others.
-
Daniel Gray
makes no difference, they cannot violate a US Supreme Court decision.
Try again
-
-
T Kosse`
This court case is not relevant
-
Daniel Gray
Sorry but it is, just like the recent little sisters of the poor case. It must be magic to have your beliefs destroyed.
-
T Kosse`
This is your statement: the animal sacrifice is a part of a religion. How you can say the two are the same is beyond knowledge to anyone but you.
In that statement you clearly said that it wasn't. So now magically it is. You seem to have a real problem of keeping your facts straight. You really suck at magic don't you.
-
-
-
T Kosse`
. It should be noted here, to avoid confusion, this decision was handed down prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). Prior to Smith , strict scrutiny was the standard of review applied, at least expressly, in cases where a free exercise violation had been alleged. The district court also found a third compelling interest asserted by the city: protecting the welfare of children by not exposing them to animal sacrifice. This interest was not re-asserted by the city in the Supreme Court.
Lukumi , 508 U.S. at 545 (citing Fla . Stat . § 828.24 (3) (1991)). But note that this exemption was later repealed, when § 828.24 was substantially rewritten and amended. Act effective July 1, 2001, ch.01-279, § 39, at 120, Law of Fla. (amending § 828.24 Fla . Stat. ( 2000)).
Rigoberto Zamora sacrificed five roosters, three goats, two hens, two pigeons, two guinea hens, and a lamb to celebrate the Lukumi decision. According to the reporters, the sacrifices did not all proceed smoothly. For example, Zamora had to trade out knives in the middle of a goat sacrifice when his first knife was too dull to finish the cut. Aminda Marques Gonzalez, Protesters, Church Rap Unusual Public Santería Sacrifices, The Miami Herald , June 27, 1993 at A1. It should also be noted that Zamora’s actions were condemned by some fellow practitioners and by Ernesto Pichardo, the head priest of the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye. Pichardo stated that Zamora’s conduct was “taken totally out of the religious experience” and that he and church elders planned to investigate the Santero’s training and background. Id .
State of Florida’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at 1-2, State v. Zamora, No. M95-28476 (Fla. Dade Cty. Ct. Feb. 14, 1996). The State prosecuted Zamora for misdemeanor animal cruelty, the four counts stemming from his inept sacrifice of the sheep and the three goats. Apparently, none of the animals had their carotid arteries severed in the manner required by the state statute governing humane ritual slaughter. Id .; Fla . Stat . §828.23 (6) (b) (2004).
see, e.g. , United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982) (holding Amish free exercise challenge to payment of Social Security taxes failed, the payment was essential to accomplish the important government interest of maintaining a nation social security system).
[90] Bowen , 476 U.S. at 693 (holding that the state’s interest in using social security numbers to administer government benefits was valid and permissible, and requiring Native American parents to obtain and use a social security number for their daughter was not a violation of free exercise).
see e.g. Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437 (1971). In Gillette , Petitioner sought exemption from military duty in Vietnam, on the basis his religious belief required he conscientiously object to “this war.” He challenged the Military Selective Service Act of 1967, which only allowed religious conscientious objection to “all wars” as violating the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. The Court determined within a few sentences of the opinion that there were substantial governmental interests relating to military conscription, which justified not permitting religious objection to specific wars. Id . at 463.
-
Daniel Gray
It should be noted here that the Little Sisters of the Poor decision was handed down in 2020 and it destroys your claim toot sweet as it clearly says that not even the federal government or obamacare can violate a persons religion
-
T Kosse`
You are so full of BS it was in 1993
-
T Kosse`
The unanimous decision by the Supreme Court and the President’s executive order were big wins for the Little Sisters. But that does not mean anyone lost.
On October 6, 2017, the government issued a new rule with a broader religious exemption. In June 2018, the Little Sisters’ original case was finally resolved with an order by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. And on November 7, 2018, HHS issued a rule finalizing the Little Sisters’ religious exemption.
The unanimous decision by the Supreme Court and the President’s executive order were big wins for the Little Sisters. But that does not mean anyone lost. As the Little Sisters had argued all along, the solution in no way bars the government from providing these services to women who want them. In fact, any alternative delivery method the government chooses could likely be applied not only to women in religious plans, but to the tens of millions of women in corporate and government plans HHS had previously exempted from the mandate. In the end, the government was able to both provide the mandated services free of charge to any woman who wanted them and accommodate the Little Sisters’ religious beliefs.
-
Daniel Gray
Sorry Kosse but it was 2020 and you would know that if you stopped whining and attacking and just did some research. So here it is directly from the SCOTUS blog and shows you still dont know what you are talking about
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/little-sisters-of-the-poor-saints-peter-and-paul-home-v-pennsylvania/
Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania
Consolidated with:
Trump v. Pennsylvania
Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term 19-431 3rd Cir. May 6, 2020 Tr.Aud. Jul 8, 2020 7-2 Thomas OT 2019
-
-
T Kosse`
In May 2016, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the lower court rulings against the Little Sisters, ordered the government not to fine the Little Sisters, and instructed the lower courts to provide the government an opportunity to find a way to provide services to the women who want them without involving the Little Sisters.
"and instructed the lower courts to provide the government an opportunity to find a way to provide services to the women who want them without involving the Little Sisters."
In the end, the government was able to both provide the mandated services free of charge to any woman who wanted them and accommodate the Little Sisters’ religious beliefs.
-
Daniel Gray
You're revisionist claims dont stand up to the facts here is what the decision said http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/LSP-Per-Curiam-Reversal.pdf and the SCOTUS REVERSED the lower court ruling that claimed the Little Sisters of the Poor had to provide birth control. And they finally slapped down the lower courts in 2020 when they ruled that the little sisters were protected from not doing this by the 1st Amendment.
You really need to stop lying Kosse.
-
T Kosse`
Slip Opinion) Cite as: 578 U. S. ____ (2016) 1 Per Curiam NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Nos. 14–1418, 14–1453, 14–1505, 15–35, 15–105, 15–119, and 15–191 DAVID A. ZUBIK, ET AL., PETITIONERS 14–1418 v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.; ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
PRIESTS FOR LIFE, ET AL., PETITIONERS 14–1453 v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.; ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF WASHINGTON, ET AL., PETITIONERS 14–1505 v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.; ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
EAST TEXAS BAPTIST UNIVERSITY, ET AL., PETITIONERS
2 ZUBIK v. BURWELL Per Curiam 15–35 v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.; ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR HOME FOR THE AGED, DENVER, COLORADO, ET AL., PETITIONERS 15–105 v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.; ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SOUTHERN NAZARENE UNIVERSITY, ET AL., PETITIONERS 15–119 v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.; AND ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT GENEVA COLLEGE, PETITIONER 15–191 v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT [May 16, 2016]
Cite as: 578 U. S. ____ (2016) 3 Per Curiam PER CURIAM. Petitioners are primarily nonprofit organizations that provide health insurance to their employees. Federal regulations require petitioners to cover certain contraceptives as part of their health plans, unless petitioners submit a form either to their insurer or to the Federal Government, stating that they object on religious grounds to providing contraceptive coverage. Petitioners allege that submitting this notice substantially burdens the exercise of their religion, in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 107 Stat. 1488, 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq. Following oral argument, the Court requested supplemental briefing from the parties addressing “whether contraceptive coverage could be provided to petitioners’ employees, through petitioners’ insurance companies, without any such notice from petitioners.” Post, p. ___. Both petitioners and the Government now confirm that such an option is feasible. Petitioners have clarified that their religious exercise is not infringed where they “need to do nothing more than contract for a plan that does not include coverage for some or all forms of contraception,” even if their employees receive cost-free contraceptive coverage from the same insurance company. Supplemental Brief for Petitioners 4. The Government has confirmed that the challenged procedures “for employers with insured plans could be modified to operate in the manner posited in the Court’s order while still ensuring that the affected women receive contraceptive coverage seamlessly, together with the rest of their health coverage.” Supplemental Brief for Respondents 14–15. In light of the positions asserted by the parties in their supplemental briefs, the Court vacates the judgments below and remands to the respective United States Courts of Appeals for the Third, Fifth, Tenth, and D. C. Circuits.
-
T Kosse`
I have looked at it and there nothing there that support just what you c laim
-
T Kosse`
They made no Supreme Court ruling on this in 2020 And why would they since they already ruled on it in 2016 You are just simply making up things that don't exist
-
T Kosse`
Comment removed by user.
-
-
-
-
T Kosse`
Shortly after the Lukumi decision was handed down by the Supreme Court, another Santero was prosecuted under Florida’s animal cruelty statute. [164] Rigoberto Zamora, a professed Santero, was charged with four counts of animal cruelty stemming from a Santería sacrifice he performed for reporters in celebration of the Lukumi decision. [165] He motioned to dismiss the charges, stating that the state animal cruelty statute, as applied to him, violated his right to free exercise of religion. [166] The prosecution asserted that the First Amendment did not prevent animal cruelty prosecutions under Fla. Stat. § 828.12, where the sacrifice was conducted in a cruel and inhumane manner. [167] The county court agreed, and denied Zamora’s motion to dismiss. [168] Zamora plead no lo contendre to all counts, reserving his right to appeal the denial. However, the 11 th Judicial Circuit per curiam affirmed the denial of the motion. [169]
-
Daniel Gray
Sorry but no. Once this was shown to be a religion then no other lower court can charge them in violation of the Supreme Courts ruling. Nice try though
-
T Kosse`
I it YOU who can't face the fact that you're wrong. However, the 11 th Judicial Circuit per curiam affirmed the denial of the motion. [169]
-
Daniel Gray
And I guess you are too set in your ways and claims to know that not even the 11th can overturn a SCOTUS decision. So so sorry, wrong yet again
-
T Kosse`
However there was never a SCOTUS decision on this ruling
-
T Kosse`
What do you really think that everyone here on this blog is blind and incapable of reading and comprehending.
-
-
-
Daniel Gray
Sorry but the SCOTUS does not agree with you
-
Carl Bernard Elfstrom
I'd hate to see the two of you in a courtroom representing opposing sides.
-
T Kosse`
You're one who don't agree with me not SCOTUS
-
Daniel Gray
little sisters of the poor decision says you are wrong
-
-
T Kosse`
This was AFTER the Lukumi decision was handed down by the Supreme Court, another Santero was prosecuted under Florida’s animal cruelty statute.
This was never rule on by the Supreme Court, but by the the 11 th Judicial Circuit .
-
Daniel Gray
and the two decisions say the exact same thing. How hard is it for you to understand this? Its as plain as the nose on your face
-
-
-
-
-
-
SING YOUR PRAISE TO THE LORD !
And remind the Communists and Socialists they have no power over CHRIST, We The People Rule !
One Nation, UNDER GOD - so yup, GOD, JESUS, and all religions OUT RANK the traitors who assault AMERICAN FREEDOM.
LIFE LIBERTY HAPPINESS
These are your UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS , and RIGHTS as American Citizens.
JESUS BLESS YOU !