On Friday, May 22, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to deny the request of South Bay United Pentecostal Church for an immediate injunction against Governor Newsom’s stay-at-home order prohibiting attendance at religious services. The church, located in Chula Vista, sued state and San Diego County officials, alleging that the stay-at-home orders violated their constitutional rights.
In dissenting from the denial, Trump appointee Daniel Collins expressed alarm at “the astonishing breadth of this assertion of government power over the citizenry, which in terms of its scope, intrusiveness, and duration is without parallel in our constitutional tradition.”
A week earlier, federal district court judge Cynthia Bashant denied the church’s petition for a temporary restraining order prohibiting the state and county from enforcing their stay-at-home orders except to the extent consistent with sanitation, distancing, and other protocols applicable to businesses. The church immediately appealed the denial to the Ninth Circuit and simultaneously asked the higher court to issue the order itself, pending a full hearing of its appeal.
Clinton appointee Barry Silverman and Obama appointee Jacqueline Nguyen voted to deny the church’s request, holding that the church was unlikely to prevail on its religious freedom claims, because there was no proof that the state was “impos[ing] burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief.” The judges added, “We’re dealing here with a highly contagious and often fatal disease for which there presently is no known cure.”
Judge Collins, however, pointed out the unprecedented nature of the current stay-at-home order. Rather than restricting particular activities likely to spread the virus, Gov. Newson’s order “presumptively prohibited California residents from leaving their homes for any reason, except to the extent that an exception to that order granted back the freedom to conduct particular activities or to travel back and forth to such activities.” While most other businesses are now in the process of re-opening as part of Phase II of the governor’s plan, by explicitly relegating “religious services” to Phase III of re-opening, “without any express regard to the number of attendees, the size of the space, or the safety protocols followed in such services, the State’s Reopening Plan undeniably discriminates on its face against religious conduct.”
Judge Collins noted that, far from the shutdown being neutrally applied, “The State is continually making judgments, at the margins, to decide what additional activities its residents may and may not engage in, and thus far, ‘religious services’ have not made the cut. . . . Warehousing and manufacturing facilities are categorically permitted to open, so long as they follow specified guidelines. But in-person ‘religious services’—merely because they are ‘religious services’—are categorically not permitted to take place even if they follow the same guidelines.”
Also lacking in neutrality is the state’s argument that there is too much risk congregants will not follow the rules. This position “illogically assumes that the very same people who cannot be trusted to follow the rules at their place of worship can be trusted to do so at their workplace,” Judge Collins wrote.
The Ninth Circuit has set an expedited briefing schedule for the full appeal. Gov. Newsom announced Friday that new church re-opening guidelines will be issued this week. The guidelines could pre-empt further action by the court.
The above comes from a May 25 email sent to Cal Catholic by a court insider.
As evidenced by the experience in other states that have permitted church services, such services can be the source of corona virus infections. The state is acting to curtail the spread of this deadly virus. There is a Catholic parish in the Midwest at which all three priests contracted the corona virus and one of the priests died. The priests were infected after the parish reopened following the suspension of a quarantine. God endowed humans with intelligence, we should use it and not fall prey to enthusiasm.
FHK, you addressed me on May 12, but never answered my two questions, even thought I answered your questions. You say “I am a pro-life, practicing Roman Catholic through and through.” Then, you should be able to simply, honestly answer a couple of questions. Here’s the post that you ignored:
FHK, I will answer your questions. Will you answer my two?
Do you think Roe v. Wade should be overturned?
You indicated you don’t “support” abortion, but, do you believe that intentional abortion is always wrong?
In answer to what you asked me: no, no and no. Those who do such need to repent, go to Confession and make amends. (And, if I’d answered yes to any of your questions, I agree, I would need to repent and go to Confession.)
Now, will you answer my two simple questions?
People can use their own judgement. If you don’t want to go don’t attend!
I wonder whether these cases are actually true and if they were infected prior to reopening. Of course, opening safely is the key and even if this happened those who did were not acting responsible or safely should be held to account. Why should others be denied their First Amendment right of practicing their faith when “liquor stores, marijuana dispensaries, and baby killing clinics” are allowed to open and others are acting irresponsible.
Many of them CAN be trusted: to do many stupid things that result in infecting those who attend in-person services, and then passing that infection on to others.
In an attempt at not being too cynical, I think the reason the “open the churches” movement is not so much about religious freedom as the lack of weekly tithes.
This is a virus for which there is no cure. Congregations that encourage their members to to to church and sit with hundreds of other people don’t really care about the people’s health. The CDC has given some common-sense guidelines for opening churches: no more than five people in the room, six feet apart, wear a mask, no touching, no singing, no prayers our loud, no sharing of books, and handwashing stations. It is not about religious freedom, worshiping, or anything else besides public health.
I beleive you are cynical Bob One. Im my view this is nothing more than an attempt by the Left to discredit the opening of churches so that their agenda of shutting down our First Amendment Right of practicing our faith is suspended forever! And if they can find just one or two where some irresponsible church acted unsafely they celebrate this because it fits right into their anti-God agenda. Again, why are abortion clinics, pot dispensaries, big stores and others not closed?
Bob One, 5 people in a place that can hold thousands? Or 5 people in a room that measures 12 x 15 feet? Is there no difference? Religious people are able to figure such things out. It is ludicrous to make such a silly statement without considering room dimensions.
As for not singing, not shaking/holding hands during Mass, Alleluia! Let’s just have the Mass.
Finally, you seem to have inordinate fears. Fear is, you know, the work of the Devil.
In California, the new rules for opening the churches are simple to follow; they call for no more than one quarter of the seating capacity or 100 people, whichever is smallest. And they include the usual taking of temps upon entering, wearing masks, etc. The courts have a reason for concern because of the large crowds that some churches attract, where the virus is spread, and where people die from the virus. None of this “lockdown” has anything to do with the First Amendment in any way, period. It has to do with crowds gathering. The easiest way to get the virus is to stand within six feet of someone who is breathing and asymptomatic. I wear a mask so that I don’t infect anyone and expect everyone else to be equally polite. In the case of this virus, for which there is no cure, yet, fear is rational thinking. One hundred thousand people have died in the last few weeks. It’s called a pandemic.
In the 2017-2018 flu season, there were 62,000 deaths from the common flu of which almost 51,000 were in the 65+ category. (CDC data). We have no cure for the common flu. We have a vaccine (about 50% effective) and less than Half of the people take it.
I will refuse to take the coronavirus vaccine in animal or aborted fetal cells are used in it development. Making that vaccine mandatory, as the Left is pushing, is a violation of the First Amendment.
A clerk in a store recently leaned over and said to me “I think this virus will go away after the election”. Perhaps a little exaggerated but destroying Trump’s economy certainly has something to do with it.