Supreme Court sides with personal worshippers

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