The conservative justices got it wrong: religious organizations are "businesses" selling a "product" and need to follow the same health and safety rules as their secular counterparts

 

Five Supreme Court justices decided this past Wednesday in favor of a Roman Catholic diocese and a conservative Jewish organization, both of which claimed that the state of New York’s COVID-19 restrictions violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The clause states that

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The claim was that the COVID-19 restrictions were somehow designed to effect houses of religion more “harshly” than secular facilities. The majority on the court claimed that New York’s restrictions that effected houses of religion were "far more restrictive than any Covid-related regulations that have previously come before the court, much tighter than those adopted by many other jurisdictions hard hit by the pandemic, and far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus.”  

By “secular” facilities, the court was referring to retail and grocery stores, restaurants, bars and the like. But that is an accurate comparison, because those establishments either have face mask and distancing requirements, enforce limited capacity or have either outside or drive-through service. A better comparison would be movie theaters and sports arenas, which nationwide are mostly either shuttered or empty, or both.

Thus the hypocrisy of the claim by the court majority that "Not only is there no evidence that the applicants have contributed to the spread of COVID-19 but there are many other less restrictive rules that could be adopted to minimize the risk to those attending religious services.” Of course there would be no “evidence” of spread in  churches and synagogues if they are sparsely or not attended. But there is plenty of evidence from Donald Trump’s “spiritual”--and maskless--campaign events in the Rose Garden also tended to be “super-spreader” events.

Furthermore, the while the majority admitted that "Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area,” it still insisted in twisted fashion that “even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten." Again, the hypocrisy is simply beyond belief. What the court effectively said is that churches and synagogues are not only governed by separate rules, but those rules can ignore public health.

Note that people accused of offenses against certain religious “commandments” like murder, stealing and bearing false witness are subject to secular punishment, and only “spiritual” punishment from religious law--which is as it should be, since we see in Muslim countries that practice sharia law the death penalty can be applied for crimes like adultery or apostasy, which in this country according to “secular” law are not crimes at all.   

The minority in the court--which would have been the majority had it not been for the untimely death Ruth Bader Ginsburg--pointed out that "The Constitution principally entrusts the safety and the health of the people to the politically accountable officials of the States”--not to religious institutions.

Let’s not forget one very important fact that the majority of the court--in its fanatical “devotion” to the separation of church and state, and as an allegedly “moral” as well as allegedly “constitutional” issue--neglects to mention: that religious institutions are in the “business” of selling a “product,” just like any other of the “secular” variety. Televangelists sell a “product” to achieve ratings and more money from television contracts, and from the sale of books and videos. It doesn’t matter what is the nature of what they are “selling”--they are still selling a product. Thus in practical and real terms they are behaving in no different a fashion than, say, a musical or stage performer. Some of them make millions of dollars; Kenneth Copeland is certainly a “performer” with his often absurd antics, and he claims to be worth a $1 billion.

The real complainants here, of course, are those religious institutions--especially the Catholic Church--which rely on donations from parishioners. One assumes that regular churchgoers are responding to urgent requests that they continue their regular donations, but one suspects that outside the churches and synagogues, there is less “guilt” in not making regular donations, and less money is coming in. That is what this is all about--money. Because churches and synagogues are places of worship first, but businesses second. Or is it the other way around? Religious institutions and organizations must run as “secular” businesses which offer “services” that practitioners pay for.

Thus religious “businesses” are demanding to ignore health and safety rules that other business must abide by. People don’t “congregate” in grocery stores--they just get in and get out. Movie theaters and the stands in football stadiums are mostly empty. But churches and synagogues want to allow hundreds to congregate in close proximity for an hour or two at a time, and maybe they will abide by face mask rules, or not. Remember that Copeland didn’t require those those who were still attending services to wear masks because he “blew” the virus into oblivion back in April, and he expected his listeners to take him at his word. That is why we shouldn’t entrust the “safety and health of the people” to unaccountable religious organizations.