{"id":5203,"date":"2021-05-15T13:13:48","date_gmt":"2021-05-15T13:13:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=5203"},"modified":"2021-05-15T13:13:48","modified_gmt":"2021-05-15T13:13:48","slug":"the-christian-right-is-racking-up-huge-victories-in-the-supreme-court-thanks-to-amy-coney-barrett","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=5203","title":{"rendered":"The Christian right is racking up huge victories in the Supreme Court, thanks to Amy Coney Barrett"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\n\n“As the Court held in Employment Division v. Smith<\/em><\/a> (1990), religious objectors must follow \u201cneutral law[s] of general applicability.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ever since Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the Court last fall, however, the Supreme Court has been rapidly dismantling Smith<\/em><\/a>…the Court fired a bullet into Smith<\/em>\u2019s heart. It ruled that people of faith who want to gather in relatively large groups in someone\u2019s home must be allowed to do so, despite the fact that California limits all in-home gatherings to just three households.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although the Court\u2019s new 5-4 decision in Tandon v. Newsom<\/em><\/a> doesn\u2019t explicitly overrule Smith<\/em>, the decision makes it so easy for many religious objectors to refuse to comply with the law that Smith<\/em> is basically a dead letter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court\u2019s new majority has accomplished what amounts to a revolution in its approach to religion and the law<\/a>, entirely through cases brought by churches and other religious actors seeking exemptions from public health rules intended to slow the spread of Covid-19.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court is serious about giving religious conservatives broad immunity from the law \u2014 so serious, in fact, that it is literally willing to endanger people\u2019s lives in order to achieve this goal.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“\u201cCalifornia treats some comparable secular activities more favorably than at-home religious exercise,\u201d the majority opinion in Tandon<\/em> claims, \u201cpermitting hair salons, retail stores, personal care services, movie theaters, private suites at sporting events and concerts, and indoor restaurants to bring together more than three households at a time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As Justice Kagan explains in her dissent, there are three very good reasons why a state might treat these secular activities differently than a gathering in people\u2019s homes. First of all, \u201cwhen people gather in social settings, their interactions are likely to be longer than they would be in a commercial setting,\u201d and the people at social gatherings are \u201cmore likely to be involved in prolonged conversations.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Additionally, \u201cprivate houses are typically smaller and less ventilated than commercial establishments,\u201d and \u201csocial distancing and mask-wearing are less likely in private settings and enforcement is more difficult.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But, ultimately, none of these distinctions mattered to the Court\u2019s majority. The practical impact of Tandon<\/em> is that, so long as many religious objectors can cite any<\/em> secular activity that is treated differently than a religious activity \u2014 no matter how distinct those two activities may be \u2014 this Supreme Court is very likely to grant the objector an exemption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tandon<\/em> is not an especially surprising decision \u2014 the Court reached a similar conclusion last November in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>a decision that I described at the time as a \u201crevolutionary victory<\/a>\u201d for religious conservatives.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.vox.com\/2021\/4\/12\/22379689\/supreme-court-amy-coney-barrett-religion-california-tandon-newsom-first-amendment<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“As the Court held in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), religious objectors must follow \u201cneutral law[s] of general applicability.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ever since Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the Court last fall, however, the Supreme Court has been rapidly dismantling Smith…the Court fired a bullet into Smith\u2019s heart. It ruled that people of faith who want to gather in relatively large groups in someone\u2019s home must be allowed to do so, despite the fact that California limits all in-home gatherings to just three households.<\/p>\n

Although the Court\u2019s new 5-4 decision in Tandon v. Newsom doesn\u2019t explicitly overrule Smith, the decision makes it so easy for many religious objectors to refuse to comply with the law that Smith is basically a dead letter.<\/p>\n

The Court\u2019s new majority has accomplished what amounts to a revolution in its approach to religion and the law, entirely through cases brought by churches and other religious actors seeking exemptions from public health rules intended to slow the spread of Covid-19.<\/p>\n

The Court is serious about giving religious conservatives broad immunity from the law \u2014 so serious, in fact, that it is literally willing to endanger people\u2019s lives in order to achieve this goal.”<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“\u201cCalifornia treats some comparable secular activities more favorably than at-home religious exercise,\u201d the majority opinion in Tandon claims, \u201cpermitting hair salons, retail stores, personal care services, movie theaters, private suites at sporting events and concerts, and indoor restaurants to bring together more than three households at a time.<\/p>\n

As Justice Kagan explains in her dissent, there are three very good reasons why a state might treat these secular activities differently than a gathering in people\u2019s homes. First of all, \u201cwhen people gather in social settings, their interactions are likely to be longer than they would be in a commercial setting,\u201d and the people at social gatherings are \u201cmore likely to be involved in prolonged conversations.\u201d<\/p>\n

Additionally, \u201cprivate houses are typically smaller and less ventilated than commercial establishments,\u201d and \u201csocial distancing and mask-wearing are less likely in private settings and enforcement is more difficult.\u201d<\/p>\n

But, ultimately, none of these distinctions mattered to the Court\u2019s majority. The practical impact of Tandon is that, so long as many religious objectors can cite any secular activity that is treated differently than a religious activity \u2014 no matter how distinct those two activities may be \u2014 this Supreme Court is very likely to grant the objector an exemption.<\/p>\n

Tandon is not an especially surprising decision \u2014 the Court reached a similar conclusion last November in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, a decision that I described at the time as a \u201crevolutionary victory\u201d for religious conservatives.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[1015,57,528],"class_list":["post-5203","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-article-share","tag-amy-coney-barrett","tag-religion","tag-supreme-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5203","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5203"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5203\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5204,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5203\/revisions\/5204"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5203"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5203"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5203"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}