The First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause protects the rights of American citizens to engage in religious rituals and beliefs and protects them from undue burdens on their religious exercise. The Free Exercise clause allows for religious individuals/organizations to violate some laws as long as the violation is made for a religious sincere reason. The issue at the center of this case is that religious entities are given special permission over non-religious groups, but in this case non-religious groups, racial protesters are getting special privileges that are being withheld from Capitol Hill Baptist Church that is causing a serve burden on their free exercise. Similarly, to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, Capitol Hill Baptist Church believes that the Mayor’s regulations are unconstitutional as they are disproportionately targeting religious organizations. In support of Capitol Hill Baptist, the Department of Justice released a statement stating, “there is no constitutional or statutory basis for allowing protest and rallies attended by thousands of people, while at the same time silencing religious worship…the city bears a high burden of proof to justify its actions”. Many other lawsuits have occurred across the country regarding Covid-19 restrictions placed upon religious organizations such as the lawsuit in Santa Clara County, California involving Calvary Chapel. The city pursued legal action against the church after they discovered they had violated Covid-19 regulations by hosting indoor church services; the county alleged that the church gathering was massive in size, more than the 100 legally allowed individuals, and was an impending risk of spreading Covid-19. This case would appear before the Supreme Court during their October 2020 session and in February 2021 the Supreme Court issued their ruling siding with Calvary Chapel and said that the county cannot ban indoor worship services, even as a result of the pandemic.
A D.C. federal court ruled in favor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church on October 9th, 2020, saying that the district’s Covid restrictions banning church services of more than 100 people violated the church’s free exercise right. This ruling allowed Capitol Hill Baptist to hold church services outdoors within the city’s limits and having all of their 800 plus members in attendance. The Sunday following the ruling, Capitol Hill Baptist Church has its first outdoor service in D.C., since they closed their doors seven months prior; the church required all congregants to wear their masks and maintain social distance. In this particular case, I agree with the ruling by the court for the simple fact that the district was not being accommodated to the needs of this particular religious group. The city showed that they could make exceptions to ban on outdoor gatherings by allowing Black Lives Matter Protest to occur throughout the city for months; if the district could allow protests with thousands of people to attend, they could allow a church to hold services with more than 100 individuals. The city was placing a justifiable burden upon the church by denying their appeals to hold their service outside in D.C. and pushed the church to hold their services outside in Virginia forcing congregants to travel all the way to Virginia when a majority of the congregation lives near the church in Capitol Hill. In this particular case, given the facts, I find it difficult to see how Mayor Bowser’s regulations did not place a substantial burden upon the free exercise of this congregation. They were not requesting the city to allow them to return to worship indoors without social distancing and no masks; they were simply asking for permission to engage in behavior that had been awarded to secular groups.
12 comments:
I agree with the author that the church's rights were being infringed on. If the city is encouraging protesting and not showcasing attempts to curb it due to Covid-19, then it is hard to justify why a church couldn't hold it's own congregations. Additionally, at this time, schools were also reopening and so were restaurants. These are both large places where people gather at extended periods of time so to continually restrict religion looks more targeted.
I would agree with the ruling of the court, since the government was encouraging and allowing these protests throughout the streets. However, in regards to other secular organizations, restaurants, and shops, I would argue that churches should not be given special privilege over these other organizations. Thus, if the ruling of the court is that the restriction of church gatherings in this case is considered unconstitutional, then the city should also be obligated to allow for the opening of other secular organizations, restaurants, and shops. There needs to be a neutral law established regarding the reopening or closing of public organizations and shops ini the city, everyone needs to be on the same page. If the government allows for the opening of one organization, they need to allow for the opening of all organizations. Going back to the government permitting the Black Lives Matter protest, I would argue that protests are not state or city regulated and they occur on free will. The question that makes me favor with the ruling of the court, is that the government did not do anything to stop these protests. Therefore, if they weren't stopping protests, but were stopping the gathering of churches and imposing fines on those who did not follow the restrictions, that then introduces a violation of the First Amedenment and an unfair & biased law.
I also agree with the author in this case. It was very clear that the city was willing to make exceptions for some groups to gather but not others. I understand that the protection of people's health is very important, however the church is willing to compromise and just have outdoor services. The city needs to be equal in their decisions and treat them fairly, regardless of the purpose behind the gathering in question. I also like Emery's point that a protest is not state or city regulated, however the city did nothing to stop them. They need to develop a neutral rule against these, and them allowing the protests to go on is what ultimately makes me side with the Court's decision.
I also would agree with the ruling of the court and the author in this case because it was clear that the city was willing to make exceptions for some goops to gather but others to not. I agree with the author that If the city could make exceptions to ban outdoor gatherings by allowing Black Lives Matter Protests to occur with thousands of people attending. They could allow a church to hold services with more than 100 individuals. I also think that this placed a burden on the church by not allowing them to hold services outside in D.C. They were simply asking for permission tot engage in behavior that has been awarded to secular groups, they weren't asking for anything crazy.
I agree with the author and other commenters that Capitol Hill Baptist should be afforded the same rights as protesters. Both the freedom to peacefully assemble and to freely exercise religion are protected by the First Amendment. These rights are the bedrock of our civil society. The District of Columbia needs to apply the same neutral standards to gatherings protected by the First Amendment here. To favor one group over the other goes against America's constitutional principles and clearly targets religion. Moreover, Capitol Hill Baptist has gone out of their way to ensure a safe socially distanced environment that complied with permits which protests in DC have not done. To keep them from doing this places a substantial burden on religious practice, making it nearly impossible. I am happy to see that the district courts agree.
I agree with the ruling however I feel as though the plaintiff's argument to compare church gatherings to the accommodation of protests is not the same thing in any nature. Protest, especially those for racial equality and abolition have very little to do with regulation of the state and although the state may be compliant that doesn't necessarily mean that they will not occur given the state doesn't accommodate for them. Dissent is dissent and is particularly against structures upheld by state law. I agree with this ruling if/given that the neutrality of the state statutes applies to, as Emery mentions, restaurants, and shops, and other secular organizations. To allow places such as eateries and retail stores to function while not allowing churches is I believe what needs to be evaluated here.
The city must be neutral in its efforts of offering covid restrictions. It cannot pick and choose group by group which ones are allowed to gather and which are not. The same rights must be afforded to all citizens regardless of religious affiliation or not. This is a clear case of religious discrimination.
I agree with the court in this decision. I think that if the city was willing to make exemptions for other organizations then the church should be allowed to hold their services. If they comply with regulations, then not allowing the church to hold services violated their free exercise of religion. The city should remain neutral and try its best to accommodate all the organizations in its jurisdiction.
I agree with Ariel, the court, and many of my peers. As the city showed, they were willing to make accommodations for some groups not others, and as Anthony points out, "the city must be neutral" when it comes to COVID19 restrictions. I am interested by the point Alicia and Emery bring up about the different places that may or may not be allowed to open and how there might be more of a case between those spaces. I really resonated with Ariel's final point: "They were not requesting the city to allow them to return to worship indoors without social distancing and no masks; they were simply asking for permission to engage in behavior that had been awarded to secular groups." If secular groups had permission, then denying religious groups the opportunity to gather is unconstitutional.
I agree with the majority of the opinions and the courts ruling in this case. During these difficult Covid times it is definitely tough to make decisions in cases like this, but the city was not able to equally make accommodations for every group and that is the problem that the court recognized. The fact this case is at the church was not requesting to have their large meetings in person, they were just asking to be treated and given the same opportunities and rights as other secular groups. So denying this specific groups right to what other groups are entitled to, would be a direct violation of the First Amendment rights.
I agree with the majority decision, and believe that if the city is supporting people going Out and protesting in large numbers, then that it is tough and unconstitutional for them to heavily restrict numbers of people attending church. While I believe that the health of those in the city should be the first priority, this is broken by the city encouraging protests. If church seems to be the one place of social gathering that is being repressed, then I can not see how this could be seen as constitutional. This is especially evident when comparing them with restaurants, as most of the time masks are not worn there. In conclusion I feel that the best solution may be to find safer ways to go about mass public gatherings, and keep the citizens of this city safe.
Post a Comment