Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rintintin
This article is an utter fraud completely ignoring the actual text of the decision which you can read for yourself Illinois Republican Party v. J. B. Pritzker, No. 20-2175 (7th Cir. 2020)

The case challenges the Pritzger order which gives religious activities more leeway than other activities, not less. The decision, which Barrett did not write - by the way - states:

A 8 No. 20‐2175 group of 100 people may gather in a church, a mosque, or a synagogue to worship, but the same sized group may not gather to discuss the upcoming presidential election. The Re‐ publicans urge that only the content of the speech distin‐ guishes these two hypothetical groups, and as they see it, Reed prohibits such a line.

Our response is to say, “not so fast.” A careful look at the Supreme Court’s Religion Clause cases, coupled with the fact that EO43 is designed to give greater leeway to the exercise of religion, convinces us that the speech that accompanies reli‐ gious exercise has a privileged position under the First Amendment, and that EO43 permissibly accommodates reli‐ gious activities. In explaining that conclusion, we begin with a look at the more conventional cases examining the interac‐ tion of the two Religion Clauses. We then take a close look at Reed, and we conclude by explaining that a comparison be‐ tween ordinary speech (including political speech, which all agree lies at the core of the First Amendment) and the speech aspect of religious activity reveals something more than an “apples to apples” matching. What we see instead is “speech” being compared to “speech plus,” where the “plus” is the pro‐ tection that the First Amendment guarantees to religious ex‐ ercise. Even though we held in Elim that the Governor was not compelled to make this accommodation to religion, nothing in Elim, and nothing in the Justices’ brief writings on the effect of coronavirus measures on religion, says that he was forbid‐ den to carve out some space for religious activities. See South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 140 S. Ct. 1613 (2020); Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, No. 19A1070, 2020 WL 4251360 (U.S. July 24, 2020).

104 posted on 09/23/2020 4:32:13 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: AndyJackson

Thanks for posting that. That gives the lie to most of the posts on the ruling in a couple of different ways.


158 posted on 09/23/2020 6:36:49 AM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson