Home https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ US https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ The district court stops the rules for the California virus, which restricts home worship

The district court stops the rules for the California virus, which restricts home worship



The Supreme Court tells California that it cannot enforce coronavirus-related restrictions that have restricted home-based religious worship, including Bible studies and prayer meetings. The court ruling late Friday is the latest in a recent series of cases in which the High Court has prevented officials from enforcing some coronavirus-related restrictions that apply to religious gatherings. Five conservative judges agreed that California’s restrictions on religious gatherings at home should be lifted by now, while the court’s three Liberal and Supreme Court Justice John Roberts would not have done so. However, California has already announced significant changes that will loosen restrictions on gatherings that take effect on April 1

5th. The changes come after infection rates have dropped in the state. The case before the judges involved determines that California in most states limits indoor social gatherings to a maximum of three households. Participants must wear masks and physical distance from each other. Various restrictions apply to locations, including schools, grocery stores, and churches. “California treats some similar secular activities more favorably than religious training at home,” allowing hair salons, shops and cinemas, among other things, “to gather more than three households at a time,” the unsigned order from the court said. A lower court “did not conclude that these activities pose a lesser risk of transmission than the applicants’ proposed religious practice at home,” it said. The court acknowledged that California’s policy for rallies will change next week, but said the restrictions remain in place until then and that “officials with a track record of” moving the target posts “retain the authority to reintroduce these increased restrictions at all times. ” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a disagreement for herself and her Liberal colleagues, Judge Stephen Breyer and Judge Sonia Sotomayor, that the majority of the court harmed the ability of state officials to tackle a public health emergency. California restricts religious gatherings in homes to three households. If the state also limits all secular collections in homes to three households, it has complied with the first amendment. And the state does just that: It has adopted a limited restriction on home gatherings of all kinds, both religious and secular. California does not have to … treat religious gatherings at home the same as hardware stores and hair salons, ”she wrote. She added that “the law does not require the state to treat apples and watermelons equally.” The case before the judges involved two residents of Santa Clara County in the San Francisco Bay Area who want to host small, personal Bible studies. in their home. California had defended its policy of restricting social gatherings as “completely neutral.” The court has heard a number of cases in which religious groups have challenged coronavirus restrictions affecting worship services. While early in the pandemic, the court sat down with state officials over the objection of religious groups that changed after the death of liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last September and her replacement for conservative judge Amy Coney Barrett. hard hit by the virus. And in February, the California Supreme Court said it could not prevent indoor church worship because of the coronavirus pandemic, although it now stands for a ban on singing and singing indoors.

The Supreme Court tells California that it cannot enforce coronavirus-related restrictions that have restricted home-based religious worship, including Bible studies and prayer meetings.

The court ruling late on Friday is the latest in a recent series of cases in which the Supreme Court has prevented officials from enforcing some coronavirus restrictions that apply to religious gatherings.

Five conservative judges agreed that California’s restrictions on religious gatherings at home should be lifted for now, while the court’s three Liberal and Supreme Court Justice John Roberts would not have done so.

However, California has already announced significant changes that will loosen restrictions on gatherings that take effect on April 15th. The changes come after infection rates have dropped in the state.

The case before the judges involved determines that California in most of the state limits indoor social gatherings to a maximum of three households. Participants must wear masks and physical distance from each other. Various restrictions apply to locations, including schools, grocery stores, and churches.

“California treats some comparable secular activities more favorably than religious training at home,” allowing hair salons, shops and cinemas, among other places, “to gather more than three households at a time,” the unsigned order said the court. A lower court “did not conclude that these activities pose a lesser risk of transmission than the applicants’ proposed religious practice at home,” it said.

The court acknowledged that California’s collection policy will change next week, but said the restrictions remain in place until then, and that “officials with a track record of ‘moving the goalposts’ retain the authority to reintroduce these increased restrictions at all times. . “

Judge Elena Kagan wrote in a disagreement for herself and her Liberal colleagues, Judge Stephen Breyer and Judge Sonia Sotomayor, that the majority of the court harmed the ability of state officials to tackle a public health emergency.

California restricts religious gatherings in homes to three households. If the state also limits all secular collections in homes to three households, it has complied with the first amendment. And the state does just that: It has adopted a limited restriction on home gatherings of all kinds, both religious and secular. California does not have to … treat religious gatherings at home the same as hardware stores and hair salons, ”she wrote. She added that “the law does not require the state to treat apples and watermelons equally.”

The case before the judges involved two residents of Santa Clara County in the San Francisco Bay Area who want to host small, personal Bible studies in their homes. California had defended its policy of limiting social gatherings as “completely neutral.”

The court has heard a number of cases in which religious groups have challenged coronavirus restrictions affecting worship services. While early in the pandemic, the court confronted officials over the religious groups’ objections, it changed after the death of liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last September and her replacement for Conservative judge Amy Coney Barrett.

In November, the district court prevented New York from enforcing certain limits on attendance at churches and synagogues in areas designated as severely affected by the virus. And in February, the California District Court told that it can not prevent indoor church services because of the coronavirus pandemic, even though it now stands for a ban on singing and singing indoors.


Source link