Posted on 04/14/2020 1:04:48 PM PDT by Morgana
Three southern California churches sued Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday, arguing that the state’s social distancing orders infringed upon the First Amendment right to freedom of religion and assembly.
The suit was filed in the federal court for the Central District of California and also names state Attorney General Xavier Becerra and officials of San Bernardino and Riverside counties. It seeks to block the governor’s coronavirus stay-at-home orders, which don’t exempt houses of worship as “essential” infrastructure and prohibits group gatherings, according to the Associated Press.
James Moffatt, senior pastor at Church Unlimited and a plaintiff in the suit, was fined $1,000 for holding a Palm Sunday service in defiance of Riverside County’s stay-at-home order.
Moffatt “believes that Scripture commands him as a pastor to lay hands on people and pray for them, this includes the sick,” the suit said. “Moffatt also believes that he is required by Scripture to baptize individuals, something that cannot be done at an online service.”
A parishioner and the head pastor of Shield of Faith Family Church in Fontana and the senior pastor of Word of Life Ministries International in Riverside are also named in the suit, the Associated Press reported.
The churches argue that the state and local orders are too broad and that social distancing can be practiced in religious settings in the same manner as grocery stores and other essential businesses that are allowed to remain open.
“The state does not get to dictate the method of worship to the faithful,” Harmeet K. Dhillon, chief executive of the Center for American Liberty, a California nonprofit organization that filed the suit, said according to the Associated Press.
“If a Californian is able to go to Costco or the local marijuana shop or liquor store and buy goods in a responsible, socially distanced manner, then he or she must be allowed to practice their faith using the same precautions.”
U.S. District Judge Cynthia A. Bashant, citing a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, said the right to freedom of religion doesn’t “include the right to expose the community … to communicable disease.”
I was waiting for this. Yes prohibiting religious services is unconstitutional. The government can put reasonable restrictions that are narrowly tailored, but a blanket prohibition is clearly illegal. If Wal Mart can remain open, then churches can remain open. There is no constitutional right to shop at Wal Mart. There is a constitutional right to assemble for religious purposes.
Agree 100%.
The pastor in the article had some good points: no such thing as a virtual baptism or a virtual laying on of hands. (”Imagine that I’m dunking you under the water...”)
I also believe there can be no virtual distribution of the bread and cup in communion or even a virtual consecrating of them.
Virtual sermons and music ring hollow to me, and virtual fellowship is a joke.
People need to take responsibility for themselves. Life is one big risk that always ends in death. People need to be able to make their own decisions even with a plague. Quarantine the sick. That’s reasonable. Lock everyone in their homes indefinitely, not so much.
If virtual counts, then we need have only one Christian pastor in the entire country. Him and his hologram.
“If a Californian is able to go to Costco or the local marijuana shop or liquor store and buy goods in a responsible, socially distanced manner, then he or she must be allowed to practice their faith using the same precautions.”
Not exactly true. Even if Costco and liquor stores were closed down, freedom of religion is still inviolable.
You can’t sue an emperor! ... well, at least the U.S. Constitution has no provision to do so and it’s not in the Bill of Rights. (Oh, whatever shall we do?! I must take my leave, don a mask and gloves, stand in line and find me a fainting couch over at Costco ... this is all too, too much!)
you still don’t understand the concept of emergency powers. There is no right to contract and carry viruses during a pandemic. We elected the governors to make emergency decisions.
Now I support the drive in concept. Don’t know what those are closed.
Didn’t we do this be before and need you learned nothing.
Have the last word I don’t want to dance with you again.
unlikely you can sue a governor exercising emergency powers. but it’ your $$$
try zoom or a vacant drive in
my wife has bible study and services on zoom
Emergency powers that take away constitutional rights must be narrowly tailored to address a compelling government interest. They cannot be blanket or vague. They have to have a direct relationship to a compelling government interest.
Most of these state decrees, especially those that are prohibiting religious services are unconstitutional. The governor of Michigan has basically banned all recreational activities, even if they are solo activities such as snow boarding or fishing. How does that serve the alleged compelling government interest,
Essentially the government has incarcerated into solitary confinement anyone that they deem as “non-essential”.
Reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode where Burgess Meredith was deemed to be “obsolete”.
each of your first two paragraph opening sentences is factually incorrect. Don’t have to be narrow just related. Not unconstitutional to restrict a right f=during an emergency,
I see it’s you again. It is a mistake and waste of time to talk to person who repeats the same mistakes.
I’m out. Next time I’ll look at the name first
What law school did you flunk out of?
I’m finding myself...confused by your post.
I support drive in church services
I also support the president’s and governor’s emergency powers even the power-hungry and stupid ones. They are the highest elected official and the buck stops there.
Fair enough......I know where you are coming from...
I support governors having emergency powers That explains it as directly as I can. I didn’t vote for him I give him a C+ on the virus management and B+ on speechifying. In fact he and Trump have cooperated surprisingly well and Cal is hurting far less than NY
If you want to accuse me of something be specific. How is your governor doing?
The implication you give is that a governor should not have the power. What its your alternative? Chaos?
we engaged before and you make gross exaggerations and accusations and contribute nothing. I’m out.
Apparently stuckincali thinks that emergency powers are unlimited. Using his logic, the governor could order anyone caught outside without a mask could be shot.
I kinda doubt it....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.