That wasn't at all what the Court said. Nowhere close. Short version - the Court temporarily barred a specific NY restriction, based at least mostly on the fact that it was overly strict and that it was not consistent with restrictions on various secular entities. The Court did not say attendance could not be limited at all.
Now sure, some of the justices may very well think no limitations whatsoever should be allowed, but that's not what this ruling says.
I'm disappointed in NPR. That's something I'd expect out of Faux.
That wasn't at all what the Court said. Nowhere close. Short version - the Court temporarily barred a specific NY restriction, based at least mostly on the fact that it was overly strict and that it was not consistent with restrictions on various secular entities. The Court did not say attendance could not be limited at all.
Now sure, some of the justices may very well think no limitations whatsoever should be allowed, but that's not what this ruling says.
I'm disappointed in NPR. That's something I'd expect out of Faux.
I saw that reading an article, but all of the headlines and TV shorts I've seen have cast it as a "freedom of religion" stance by the cons minus Roberts. I'm not even sure whose agenda is being served.
I saw that reading an article, but all of the headlines and TV shorts I've seen have cast it as a "freedom of religion" stance by the cons minus Roberts. I'm not even sure whose agenda is being served.
Yeah, I think if you're going to argue that churches are no different from any other "gathering" in regard to covid spread, you have to also consider it no worse. The mistake (by NY) here is to cut the number allowed in church lower than that allowed in a store. Sure, you could say that the normal activities in the church are more risky (closer sitting longer, singing, maybe greeting, hugging, yada), but you still have to be consistent or you open up the argument "oh, so it's dangerous to pray but not to (whatever)." On that particular narrow ruling on those specific circumstances, I think I agree with the right-wingers, even if not for their same reasons.
It's not "live".
Trump is "immoral" coming and going. Turning him over doesn't change that.
Neither Joe's EOs, Pence nor the Virgin Islands are mentioned in the article.
