Anabaptism and the 1st Amendment

[MaxPC]

Can anyone explain to me how outside protests are not spreader events but outside hymn sings and church gathers are?

I can: it is about political agendas instead of authentic science.

[silentreader]

Can anyone explain to me how outside protests are not spreader events but outside hymn sings and church gathers are?

As requested: https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Why+does ... utdoors%3F

Outside and outside as per Robert?

[Ken]

Can anyone explain to me how outside protests are not spreader events but outside hymn sings and church gathers are?

As requested: https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Why+does ... utdoors%3F

Outside and outside as per Robert?

Sorry. I misread his question. I don't think an outside protest and outside church service would be any different and I'm not sure there is any evidence to suggest that they are.

[Robert]

Sorry. I misread his question. I don't think an outside protest and outside church service would be any different and I'm not sure there is any evidence to suggest that they are.

Yet, some "rights" are being protected and allowed while others are not. This is the challenge I see. Protests were allowed in CA yet church services, even outside were restricted.

Others were stopped and arrested for hymn singing in an outside parking lot.

[Robert]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/suprem ... us-liberty

The Supreme Court sided unanimously with a Catholic foster agency in a dispute against the city of Philadelphia over whether it should be banned from participating in the city's foster program because it excludes same-sex couples.

The group, Catholic Social Services (CSS), claimed that "Philadelphia’s attempts to exclude the Catholic Church from foster care" violated the First Amendment. Lawyers for the city, meanwhile, said that CSS "lacks a constitutional right to demand that DHS offer it a contract that omits the same nondiscrimination requirement every other FFCA must follow when performing services for the City."

In a 9-0 ruling, the justices sided with Catholic Social Services.

"CSS seeks only an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a majority opinion. "The refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless it agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents cannot survive strict scrutiny, and violates the First Amendment."

[Ken]

Sorry. I misread his question. I don't think an outside protest and outside church service would be any different and I'm not sure there is any evidence to suggest that they are.

Yet, some "rights" are being protected and allowed while others are not. This is the challenge I see. Protests were allowed in CA yet church services, even outside were restricted.

Others were stopped and arrested for hymn singing in an outside parking lot.

Yes, that seems clearly unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment (equal protection) if not the 1st.

As long as we are talking about the same jurisdiction. Public health regulations and restrictions are largely state and local not national. So the fact that MN allowed an outdoor protest to happen and CA closed outdoor church activities doesn't mean there was unequal treatment happening. Each jurisdiction was different. Just like some jurisdictions still have mask requirements and some do not. But if the SAME jurisdiction under the SAME laws and regulations was treating different similarly situated entities differently then that would seem to be unconstitutional whether it was a church involved or not.

[Robert]

So the fact that MN allowed an outdoor protest to happen and CA closed outdoor church activities doesn't mean there was unequal treatment happening.

The reason the federal Judge overturned the CA restrictions on churches is because they were putting more limitations on churches than other organizations and churches are protected by the 1st Amendment and the other organizations are not.

[Ken]

So the fact that MN allowed an outdoor protest to happen and CA closed outdoor church activities doesn't mean there was unequal treatment happening.

The reason the federal Judge overturned the CA restrictions on churches is because they were putting more limitations on churches than other organizations and churches are protected by the 1st Amendment and the other organizations are not.

Well yes. And I agreed with the ruling if that was the basis. But honestly, all types of organizations and individuals should be protected against unequal and discriminatory treatment under the 14th Amendment. Not just churches.

I'm just saying the fact that one state has one set of regulations and another state has a different set of regulations doesn't mean there is discrimination. That is only true if similar individuals or organizations are being treated differently within a particular state and there isn't a reasonable justification for it.

[Robert]

I'm just saying the fact that one state has one set of regulations and another state has a different set of regulations doesn't mean there is discrimination. That is only true if similar individuals or organizations are being treated differently within a particular state and there isn't a reasonable justification for it.

Yet, this has not been the case. You keep stating hypotheticals and I am presenting actual events. Multiple times, people of faith have been singled out or restricted more than others. The 1st Amendment is what is stopping that in the US as courts finally catch up to the run away administrations. Actually, the courts hid for a while until the crisis was over, than said "naughty, naughty." This often happens, but it stops precedent for later misuse. Not the best system, but it does work eventually.

[temporal1]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/suprem ... us-liberty

The Supreme Court sided unanimously with a Catholic foster agency in a dispute against the city of Philadelphia over whether it should be banned from participating in the city's foster program because it excludes same-sex couples.

The group, Catholic Social Services (CSS), claimed that "Philadelphia’s attempts to exclude the Catholic Church from foster care" violated the First Amendment. Lawyers for the city, meanwhile, said that CSS "lacks a constitutional right to demand that DHS offer it a contract that omits the same nondiscrimination requirement every other FFCA must follow when performing services for the City."

In a 9-0 ruling, the justices sided with Catholic Social Services.

"CSS seeks only an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a majority opinion. "The refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless it agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents cannot survive strict scrutiny, and violates the First Amendment.

2021: UNANIMOUS. First Amendment ruling:
“Supreme Court sides with Catholic adoption agency that refuses to work with LGBT couples”
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/supreme ... uples.html

.. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion for a majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption. ..

- - - - - - -

2011: Devastating, shocking news in Illinois (even for non-Catholics)

RELIGION
“Illinois, Catholic Agencies At Odds Over Gay Adoptions”
July 5, 2011 10:23 AM ET
Heard on “All Things Considered”