COVID-19 Response: An issue that shouldn't be at all political....yet here we are

[spliff(TONE)]

Do you not see the danger that this ruling would have brought about had it been allowed to stand? Here is an example. Lets say a very devout Atheist becomes the governor of a state and bans all religious services in his/her state.

Sounds completely unlikely (as well as bordering on ridiculous fear mongering) and not at all akin to what's currently happening in this country. No one's trying to trample on American's guarantee of religious liberty.

Quite telling that you bring up this speculative, future "danger" while conveniently waving off the very real, current danger of disregarding local health ordinances during a deadly pandemic. Again: there are very safe, reasonable, and effective alternatives to in person church services.

[nastynice]

Personally, no.

Congregating in churches, synagogues, mosques, and covens is simply not essential.

They are definitely essential for many people.

Generally speaking, if they have safety measures in place I don't see why there should be an issue.

The problem where I live is some places are following guidelines, like gyms have mandatory make and lots of wipe down stations, but at the same time bars are open at night like its 2019. These places cause jumps in numbers which makes other places have to close which otherwise wouldnt have.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[rhino17]

once again, I am NOT suggesting a church be considered essenstial and, for the record, I'm not even suggesting they should necessarily be allowed to have in person services.....but I'm not buying the mindset that they be more restricted than a restaurant.......especially when indoor dining means zero masks, while masks can be worn during a service, and restaurants don't have cathedral ceilings

Talking about how you view church leaders' motives is irrelevant to the point- there's no justification to restrict a church any more...or less...than other non-essential businesses

I don't think anyone is saying they should be treated differently. I think the most common situation is that they are given a pass when no one else is and people don't like that. Especially when remote services are an easy way to still incorporate an entire congregation. We have absolutely no indoor dining, outdoor only and limited to 4 people of the same household. Gyms are at 10% capacity. Any entertainment venue (with very similar seating too a church) is completely closed right now.

How airlines get away with what they are doing is beyond me

Do you not see the danger that this ruling would have brought about had it been allowed to stand? Here is an example. Lets say a very devout Atheist becomes the governor of a state and bans all religious services in his/her state. The supreme court would not be able to strike that ruling down with this as a precedent.
I have absolutely no problem with social distancing. I do not wish to be infected again. It was no fun and I do what I can to avoid the pleasure of a repeat visit from Covid.
Leaparishioners.

Literally not the same legal issue. The scenario you mentioned is explicitly illegal.

[Crovash]

They are definitely essential for many people.

If I am asked to eat and drink alone at home, they can worship and pray and sing alone at home.

[Crovash]

Lets say a very devout Atheist becomes the governor of a state and bans all religious services in his/her state. The supreme court would not be able to strike that ruling down with this as a precedent.

I doubt it, though I’d love to see it play out.

[nastynice]

If I am asked to eat and drink alone at home, they can worship and pray and sing alone at home.

Doesn't make it any less essential. Restaurants operate with proper protocol intact, so can places of worship.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[browski234]

Do you not see the danger that this ruling would have brought about had it been allowed to stand? Here is an example. Lets say a very devout Atheist becomes the governor of a state and bans all religious services in his/her state. The supreme court would not be able to strike that ruling down with this as a precedent.
I have absolutely no problem with social distancing. I do not wish to be infected again. It was no fun and I do what I can to avoid the pleasure of a repeat visit from Covid.
Leaparishioners.

There is literally no such thing as a devout atheist, so your hypothetical is absolutely impossible. An actual atheist, not the character you made up to represent your misunderstanding of atheism, wouldn’t even entertain the idea of banning anything religious. Like no atheist would even entertain the thought. Atheists don’t detest or ignore religion.

It has no place in politics though.

[SfgiantsJD3]

"United Airlines Holdings Inc. UAL -0.74% on Friday began operating charter flights to position doses of Pfizer Inc.’s PFE 1.92% Covid-19 vaccine for quick distribution if the shots are approved by regulators, according to people familiar with the matter."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/united-...ne-11606512293

[spliff(TONE)]

Doesn't make it any less essential. Restaurants operate with proper protocol intact, so can places of worship.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

One of the issues though is that some of these churches think they are above obeying "proper protocol".

[dbroncos78087]

One of the issues though is that some of these churches think they are above obeying "proper protocol".

Churches always think they’re above the law. They think that they are the only law. We need to work to correct that thinking.

[catman]

I don't think anyone is saying they should be treated differently. I think the most common situation is that they are given a pass when no one else is and people don't like that. Especially when remote services are an easy way to still incorporate an entire congregation. We have absolutely no indoor dining, outdoor only and limited to 4 people of the same household. Gyms are at 10% capacity. Any entertainment venue (with very similar seating too a church) is completely closed right now.

How airlines get away with what they are doing is beyond me



Literally not the same legal issue. The scenario you mentioned is explicitly illegal.

With this lower court ruling in place, it could happen.
And, by the way, all of the churches I know about follow social distancing rules. Every other pew is roped off. Only family members are allowed to sit closer than 10 feet apart. No hand-shakes or hugs allowed in the building.
My church has had 2 "in-person" services since March. We have our services on Facebook live.

[rhino17]

With this lower court ruling in place, it could happen.

Incorrect

[browski234]

With this lower court ruling in place, it could happen.
And, by the way, all of the churches I know about follow social distancing rules. Every other pew is roped off. Only family members are allowed to sit closer than 10 feet apart. No hand-shakes or hugs allowed in the building.
My church has had 2 "in-person" services since March. We have our services on Facebook live.

That’s great.

What about other churches?

The larger concern isn’t solved by your anecdotal church, dude lol

[dbroncos78087]

That’s great.

What about other churches?

The larger concern isn’t solved by your anecdotal church, dude lol

Any group that encourages mass congregation such as sporting events and bars should be restricted equally. It’s not because they’re a church or bar or stadium. It’s because they encourage close grouping by default as their business model.

[catman]

Incorrect

Howso?