Wednesday Writs: South Bay United Pentecostal Church v Gavin Newsom

Em Carpenter

Em was one of those argumentative children who was sarcastically encouraged to become a lawyer, so she did. She is a proud life-long West Virginian, and, paradoxically, a liberal. In addition to writing about society, politics and culture, she enjoys cooking, podcasts, reading, and pretending to be a runner. She will correct your grammar. You can find her on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

26 Responses

  1. Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    L4: See L5

    L6 – I’d actually like to hear the comments. Given how the Senate voted late yesterday they seem to think the have the authority.Report

  2. Doctor Jay
    Ignored
    says:

    California also argues that folks in church will seek to be in close physical proximity to one another, but doesn’t explain why physical closeness is not an issue for hair salons, for example.

    This confuses me, since I haven’t been able to get a haircut in 8 months, since they have been closed due to covid. I live in California.Report

  3. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    oh my gosh it’s going to be Lent againReport

  4. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    In re: South Bay Pentecostal Church V. Corona Virus:

    The Court holds that the virus was unable to explain why it infected some and not others, even when both took the same precautions. It therefore enjoined the virus from infecting the congregants, and struck down the laws of physics and biology as vague and unnecessarily burdensome to the free exercise.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      I go to a church running at 25% capacity and we haven’t had any incidents. That’s only an example, of course, not data. But I haven’t heard any stories about outbreaks at churches taking reasonable precautions. I’ve heard stories of priests getting sick after visiting covid patients, but nothing about services.Report

      • Em Carpenter in reply to Pinky
        Ignored
        says:

        We have had church-based outbreaks here in WV, but I do not know whether those congregations were following the guidelines or not.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky
        Ignored
        says:

        3 seconds of Googling:
        How a superspreader at choir practice sickened 52 people with COVID-19

        https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-superspreader-singing.html

        Active outbreaks reported at local churches

        https://www.gjsentinel.com/news/western_colorado/active-outbreaks-reported-at-local-churches/article_92a44b48-671d-11eb-9143-53d509bc5a76.html

        The virus remains stubbornly resistant to arguments.Report

        • veronica d in reply to Chip Daniels
          Ignored
          says:

          To be fair, that “superspreader” choir event was very early on, before people fully understood how Covid was spread. In fact, it has become a kind of textbook example of how dangerous Covid is indoors.Report

      • Andrew Donaldson in reply to Pinky
        Ignored
        says:

        A small church in my home town recently (Jan) had an outbreak of over a dozen cases including relatives of mine because they made an idiot decision, dropped their standards for one – just one- service, and escewed precautions they had otherwise been following for months. Luckily nobody died and everyone recovered but that’s all it takes: one moment after a year of doing differently.Report

      • Pinky in reply to Pinky
        Ignored
        says:

        So, you all concur with me. I’m not used to getting a thumbs-up from Chip, but I appreciate it.

        I mean, you’re all citing examples of people who didn’t follow reasonable precautions.Report

      • veronica d in reply to Pinky
        Ignored
        says:

        One thing I’m sure of, freedom of religion is quite important, and thus while I support lockdowns in general, singling out churches with extra burdens not placed on secular businesses is pretty bad politics.

        Moreover, on the enforcement end, I don’t think we’ll manage to stop crazy people from doing crazy things. Just as it is probably hopeless to stop people from holding superbowl parties, you probably won’t stop the “snake handling” types from breaking every rule you might pass. It’s tragic, but it’s real. Those people are going to get sick and kill their families — at least a horrifying number will. I dislike “writing people off.” However, a think there is a utilitarian argument for focusing our public health efforts elsewhere.

        I think it’s more important to establish a constructive relationship with churches. Most clergy are responsible and want the best for their congregation. Work with them to find sensible compromises.

        It’s sad that this had to go to court.

        Let me add, while most clergy are responsible, obviously there are a few crazy pants jerks who believe conspiracies. I don’t think we can do much with them. However, it seems the states, at least in some cases, passed laws that on the surface clearly singled out churches for extra burdens. Even if some clergy are conspiratorial nutbags, those nutbags didn’t force the states to pass unfair laws. They did that on their own.Report

  5. Marchmaine
    Ignored
    says:

    L3: is interesting in the possible Physical limitations of taking an exam like the bar… according to the article, scrolling rather than having the full physical text in front of you may have reduced the effectiveness of online test takers…

    I could see that… the physical text offers opportunity for notes/markings as well as a sort of mental map of where that interesting thing that’s relevant now was located. I know I always go back to the physical book if I’m working through something larger than, say, a comment.

    Or that’s what the article implies anyhow… I’m not actually familiar with how the Bar exam works.Report

    • InMD in reply to Marchmaine
      Ignored
      says:

      When I took it virtually everyone was already taking the written portion on a laptop but with a physical question booklet. The multistate was a scan tron. If I were to take it remotely I’d want a dual monitor set up.Report

      • Marchmaine in reply to InMD
        Ignored
        says:

        Makes sense… but if it’s like the AP exams my kids were taking, you wouldn’t be able to have two log-in’s and the way the app (poorly) was built you couldn’t create separate windows. So possible you’d be stuck in the app scrolling up/down for security/integrity reasons.

        {As an aside, the first covid AP exam my daughter took you had to actually cut/paste your answers into the application before the timer ran out… she did not beat the timer}Report

        • InMD in reply to Marchmaine
          Ignored
          says:

          Yea they definitely need to figure that out. I don’t see why the software would be incapable of at the very least locking someone in with a split screen. It does not seem like an insurmountable dev obstacle. And yet….Report

  6. Marchmaine
    Ignored
    says:

    L1: I hold the Universal opinion of One that Hymns should be sung, loudly, often, and everywhere… except Church.

    So, I’m desperately hoping that the Supreme court coalesces around a unanimous Roberts jurisprudence… and that it becomes a constitutional amendment.

    Sorry (ex-)Choir Director… it’s the law.

    On all the other stuff… y’all are still wrong… as wrong as you were 12-months ago, 9-months ago, 6-months ago, 3-months ago and, according to my notes, 4-days ago.Report

  7. Mike Schilling
    Ignored
    says:

    The Court, far from unanimous, permitted the state to impose a 25% capacity limit

    I read that at first as “25% casualty limit”.Report

  8. Oscar Gordon
    Ignored
    says:

    L9: I kinda miss Boston Legal, one of the few legal shows I enjoyed watching.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *