View Single Post
Old 11-26-2020, 08:54 PM   #7002
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: California
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ped View Post
And Barrett has sided with religious organizations in a dispute against COVID-19 restrictions in New York.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/26/polit...vid/index.html
I can’t say I disagree with Gorsuch here.

Quote:
At the same time, the Governor has chosen to impose no capacity restrictions on certain businesses he considers “es- sential.” And it turns out the businesses the Governor con- siders essential include hardware stores, acupuncturists, and liquor stores. Bicycle repair shops, certain signage companies, accountants, lawyers, and insurance agents are all essential too. So, at least according to the Governor, it may be unsafe to go to church, but it is always fine to pick up another bottle of wine, shop for a new bike, or spend the afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians. Who knew public health would so perfectly align with secular convenience?
As almost everyone on the Court today recognizes, squar- ing the Governor’s edicts with our traditional First Amend- ment rules is no easy task. People may gather inside for extended periods in bus stations and airports, in laundro- mats and banks, in hardware stores and liquor shops. No apparent reason exists why people may not gather, subject to identical restrictions, in churches or synagogues, espe- cially when religious institutions have made plain that they stand ready, able, and willing to follow all the safety pre- cautions required of “essential” businesses and perhaps more besides. The only explanation for treating religious places differently seems to be a judgment that what hap- pens there just isn’t as “essential” as what happens in sec- ular spaces. Indeed, the Governor is remarkably frank about this: In his judgment laundry and liquor, travel and tools, are all “essential” while traditional religious exercises are not. That is exactly the kind of discrimination the First Amendment forbids.
The act of declaring it non essential is the act of discrimination. Given the constitution I agree with the reasoning of Gorsuch far more than the liberal justices.

Acupuncture is essential but religion isn’t? It’s tough to argue that religion isn’t as essential as paramedical services.

I also love reading Gorsuch decisions.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...20a87_4g15.pdf
GGG is offline