Hacker News Reader

Comment by Meekro | Hacker News Reader

Whether there is a pandemic or not isn't given great weight by either side. Both sides implicitly agree that California isn't allowed to go out of its way to penalize churches, but they disagree on whether it has done that.

Robert's order says that "similar or more severe restrictions apply to lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances." He concludes that California is not singling out churches.

Kavanaugh's dissent notes that churches are being treated worse than "factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries."

View on HN

You don’t need much in the way of reasoning, or any really, to deny an emergency stay order. The presumption is and should be very much against.

That is another good observation that was hard to understand at first to someone very familiar with law (like myself). It would be a very strong action for the supreme court to take action here. The dissent doesn't really say why it would be irreparable damage to keep churches closed a little bit longer.

Sure, but neither side is presuming that emergency orders are (un)constitutional.

Both opinions do ultimately agree that emergency orders are, in general, constitutional during a pandemic. And not by presumption, but by an examination of the laws and facts.

That is why neither position makes this a central question: not because it's presumed, but because they both ultimately agree it's not a point of contention.

The point of contention is whether this particular order's treatment of churches is constitutional. Not whether the orders in general are constitutional.

Once both sides agree that the orders are in general constitutional, the argument that churches should be allowed to stay open while some other similar things stay closed now does require an argument.

There seems to be some very mild confusion here. An "emergency stay order" doesn't refer to an order to stay home during an emergency. It's a request to the court to ask for the enforcement of the law to be temporarily halted (stayed) for the reason that it will cause immediate or irreparable harm to the moving party (it will injure the religious establishments).

There's no question that such requests are generally Constitutional.

> cannabis dispensaries

I’ve never seen a cannabis dispensary where masses of people crowd together and sing spittle into each other’s faces.

Surely when looking at same treatment, you have to consider the differences in exposure. Plus church can feasibly be done remotely, where cannabis dispensing involves some physical transfer (could be mandated to be delivery though, and no singing and reduced capacity could be mandated for church gatherings).

There are (or 'were', at the moment) plenty of dispensaries with smoking rooms in the back full of people exhaling their droplets.

The were part is the key here, currently churches have more opportunity to be open (at least in bay area), so that part does not make sense.

If one type of church can be open then why not the other? I acknowledge the risk and wouldn't attend either, but the double standard seems apparent to me.

It isn’t about anyone’s individual risk, but the risk to the entire community, including nonmembers.

I think the isolation is a risk to the community too. We have to allow people some social contact.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/05/26/americans-w...

Cannabis is not in any way a church or recognized as a sincere held religious belief by the supreme court I believe if that is what you mean.

Nope, they don't recognize it as anything except a Schedule 1 substance. That's why it's weird that the weed shops are open but we're in here arguing about how those silly religious people should stay home.

As for the religion of cannabis, there's community, shared culture, ritual consumption of a specially-prepared substance, believers say how much it improves their life, etc. I even used to buy weed from here: http://coachellavalley.church/

Cannabis dispensaries are currently closed except for medical patients (I know, but if a doctor has written a prescription it is hard for the government to say no), and then only for curbside pickup. See here for example: https://www.airfieldsupplyco.com/mmj-recommendations

So churches clearly have more access these days which makes that argument silly.

The dispensary near me (Bay Area) has been open for non-medical non-pickup purchases for weeks. There's a translucent divider and a folding table in front of the counter to create distance, and the iPad menus are gone, but aside from that it seems like business as usual.

Really? Not the ones close to me, but I did not go out of my way to check recently. That does not seem to be essential businesses in my book, or more so than churches assuming proper social distancing rules.

To be fair my sample size is only two (2) establishments :)

> Cannabis dispensaries are currently closed except for medical patients

This is not true for San Diego county.

You can't go and browse, but both medical and recreational users can order online and pick it up or have it delivered.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com