A new Supreme Court case in a 5-4 decision just recently lifted California’s restrictions on the number of people that could religiously gather in people's homes. Bans on this personal worship, often in the form of prayer meetings and bible study, were deemed unconstitutional, even in this time of crisis with the Coronavirus as prevalent as ever. This decision by the majority stated that California had continuously violated the Constitution by looking down upon prayer meetings, even while they were, “permitting hair salons, retail stores, personal care services, movie theaters, private suites at sporting events and concerts and indoor restaurants.” This unfair treatment by the state was solely to religious gatherings, which often posed even less of a COVID risk than the secular activities that the state was tolerating. However, the dissent states that the majority was comparing the religious worship at home unfairly to public secular activities, and not private secular activities. Things such as house parties are treated with the same disapproval as religious gatherings, and therefore the minority stated that comparing personal religious worship to public secular events is not a comparison that can be made to claim an unconstitutional behaviour. In a separate court case, people were denied the ability to practice personal religious worship with members from more than three households, as the same rule was in place for other non-religious events, and it was seen to be a neutral ruling. Another thing called into question was why large public gatherings were allowed and small private ones were not. The court argued that this was due to the fact that small personal interactions are more likely to be longer than public ones, and that most public areas are larger and more ventilated than homes. However, this calls into question whether a large mall should be treated the same as a small barbershop. This case calls into question many tough predicaments. One of them being of the state can control size regulations simply based on the size and ventilation of the venue at which the event is being held, and if there are likely to be prolonged interactions. In addition to this, it raises the question of whether events such as personal worship at home can be suppressed while larger events are happening in regards to secular activities. The court ultimately ruled that this restriction on personal worship in houses can not be suppressed, under the protection of the first amendment. This sets a precedent for the court standing up for religious worship when secular events are being allowed with much more people than they are. This is a very tough case for me to pick a side on, and in the end I must side with the dissent. While I do not feel that it is right to suppress small personal study sessions when much, much larger secular events are occuring, in the end the religious events at home are being treated the same as the secular events at home such as parties. The dissent claimed that comparing personal to public events is like comparing apples to oranges, and I agree. However, I do believe that the majority would have a stance if they were defending public worship and gathering in places such as parks, as the state has been allowing mass protests and gatherings for non-secular reasons. In the end, in my opinion it comes down to whether one interprets the first amendment as it protecting the freedom of religion when religious gatherings are being suppressed and public gatherings of the exact same nature are being allowed, or if it protects religious gatherings despite the place, size, or method of interaction by the public side.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/10/us/supreme-court-coronavirus-prayer-meetings.html?searchResultPosition=3
7 comments:
I agree with the author here. As we have discussed with other cases regarding worship and COVID19, creating rules to protect the health and well being of residents is one thing, yet to not remain neutral between religious and secular gatherings is where the issue becomes unconstitutional. If there is going to be gatherings allowed for secular purpose, the same rules, guidelines, and regulations should be allowed for religious purposes.
I think I would have to agree with the majority opinion in this case, and disagree with the author. I think the most compelling point the majority made was if other places such as hair salons, nail parlors, and other "non-essential" businesses are open, why can't churches and synagogues be too? I would tend to think religious worship is more "essential" than hair and nail salons, especially because in some religions you are required to gather at least once a week. If secular gatherings are being allowed, then nonsecular ones should be too if people are willing and want to take the risk of getting COVID in order to practice their religious beliefs.
I agree with the majority opinion in this case because as a resident of California I saw first hand how many cities and counties were hesitant with opening churches or places of prayer and more focused on bars and secular businesses reopening. As Amanda stated religion can be considered an "essential" part of one's lifestyle instead of wanting to get their nails done. There is a risk of getting covid whether someone goes to church or gets there hair done so people should have the freedom during the pandemic to practice their religion.
I think what makes this case interesting is the fact that at home personal group worship was specified in the law. I think banning all at home gatherings outside of ones household or above a certain size would be legal given the pandemic and it would apply to religious gatherings. So I do kind of side with the minority. At the same time however I do understand the majority's viewpoint.
I do agree with the author and that in evaluating neutrality the separation between large public events and small private events should be made. The fact that for small areas religious and nonreligious spaces were treated the same speaks to the neutrality and the state interest at hand. As they are able to articulate the way space and time spent in these gatherings helps the virus spread depicts the attention that this statue pays to the overwhelming state interest.
I see both sides of the argument in this case. I found Lily's comment to be very compelling as she mentioned the specific reference of religious gatherings in the law. I believe this is similar to the "timing" issue in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, in which the city outlawed specific religious practices performed by the Church. While there are obvious differences in these cases as this case relates to the unprecedented public health dangers of Covid-19, I agree that it seems non-neutral to specifically call out and prohibit religious worship.
I think it is also important to ask the question if religion is a necessary to survival in say the ways of running a business or other work opportunities are economically. Some may argue that the practice of religion is a necessity, but others say that you can do this via zoom or outside without violating covid guidelines. However, when trying to debate this, the court may become excessively entangled with religion and making assumptions on what certain religion ought to value.
Post a Comment