Judge Alito: ‘Religious Liberty Is in Danger of Becoming a Second-Class Right’

Of concern to all religious people, especially those that attend places of worship effecting; Judaism, Islam and Christianity.
This is a concern for all.

Religious Liberty in Danger Article

Start of Article

During a speech before the Federalist Society on Thursday, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito stated that “in certain quarters, religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right.” And is viewed by some as “not a cherished freedom, it’s often just an excuse for bigotry and it can’t be tolerated, even when there is no evidence that anybody has been harmed.”Alito began by cautioning that, aside from specific references to any Supreme Court cases, he isn’t commenting on the legality of coronavirus restrictions and isn’t making any statements as to whether the restrictions constitute good policy. He stated that coronavirus has “highlighted disturbing trends that were already present before the virus struck.”

Also

Alito then noted cases where coronavirus restrictions that “blatantly discriminated against houses of worship” in California and Nevada were upheld by the Supreme Court. Alito stated that in both cases, the rationale was that the court should defer to the governors. Alito continued that this deference meant that Nevada treated “casinos more favorably than houses of worship.”

I have to admit people being allowed to protest in the thousands in close quarters whereas people can't attend a church service for a wedding or funeral with 200 people seems very hypocritical .

Then again the bible always said it was going to go this way at the very end.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

The Bible warned us these days are coming and they
seem to be here now.All I can say,is get right with God,
read your Bibles and keep in prayer.

Case in point:

Cali judge allows strip clubs to open under 1st Amendment, but not churches.

A California judge in San Diego has ruled that the state cannot take any action to prevent strip clubs from “being allowed to provide live adult entertainment,” and must allow them to reopen. The owners had argued their First Amendment rights were being violated and the judge agreed.

But churches making the same arguments in court have thus far been unsuccessful even though their services are expressly guarded in the same amendment.

a reply to: ketsuko

Adult entertainment...It appears THEY want to keep us
dumbed down but entertained until THEY come for us.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

“casinos more favorably than houses of worship

There both important to society. One for economic reasons and for spiritual reasons.
I don't like anyone in government having the power to play favorites like that.

They don't get taxes from us at the church. At least that's my guess.

Basically once movies theaters are allowed to meed at 100% capacity, places of worship should be able to meet again too, if they aren't....then we will know for sure.

Judge Alito is a little late to the party, it is a second class right, give it 20 more years and worshippers will get their own little star to wear.

I am not even religious and havent set foot in a church accept for weddings or funerals in years and they have been under non-stop attack for some time.

As judges become mroe activist in nature as they were taught in law school more rulings will come out against churches, add in the cancel culture, and general PC culture and they will demand people be identified so they can be avoided or ostracised to avoid being triggered.

Everyone looks at guns, but the first is in HUGE trouble, the fourth has been gutted, Due Process is on the chopping block.

If the right loses seats in the house or control of the senate we are done, and it will fall back to that old jefferson quote.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Because what happens during a COVID-19 lockdown is obviously what happens forever.

a reply to: chr0naut

The double standard was observed by a Supreme Court justice, and I agree with him, he is talking about trends, and where they have taken us, and where they are leading us.

a reply to: Irishhaf

I hear you, I don't own a gun nor do I desire to own one, yet I support the 2nd Amendment, because if it goes down religious liberties will be sure to follow. When you study history you understand what the erosion of freedoms and liberties one inch at a time can lead too. Even if you don't agree or care about those freedoms, that nagging feeling that "hey I could be next" is real. Germans that had different opinions of Germany's role in Europe and spoke out had every liberty taken from them up to and including their very lives, that is the ultimate end game, if we let our fellow citizens have cherished liberties stripped from them that they have had for over 200 years. Undoubtedly our liberty could be next.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: chr0naut

The double standard was observed by a Supreme Court justice, and I agree with him, he is talking about trends, and where they have taken us, and where they are leading us.

So, how do you place controls over protests & etc, without compromising Constitutional rights?

At least businesses and religious organizations are regulated.

And, like I said, this situation is one of national emergency and if handled properly, brief duration (it definitely is not sustainable). Trying to suggest this is other than what it is is ridiculous.

Also, he's a fairly hard right-winger and is in disagreement with other supreme court judges on issues:

Gorsuch, Alito and Kavanaugh Tangle Over Textualism in Major Win for LGBT Workers - LAW.com

And other legal opinion, senators opinions, and public opinion:

Crit ics decry Supreme Court Justice Alito's 'nakedly partisan' speech on COVID-19 measures, gay marriage - USA Today

Alito’s politically charged address draws heat - Politico

a reply to: chr0naut

Of course you can disagree with him, I agree with him that is all

a reply to: chr0naut

By applying the law equally and fairly.

Thats litterally the only way, any other way leads to distrust unrest and appeareance of favoritism.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: chr0naut

By applying the law equally and fairly.

Thats litterally the only way, any other way leads to distrust unrest and appeareance of favoritism.

So, should, for instance, religious organizations be tax exempt? Surely that is not treating them with equality under the law. And considering the number of very large businesses that purport to be 'religious organizations', shouldn't something be done about that?

And what of those Fortune 500 companies that, because they can pay some smart accountants and lawyers (that everyone else can't afford), pay almost no tax on their incredible profitability. Surely that's not equality under the law?

And what of the inequality of medical and health services where the cost of fairly mundane stuff gets inflated by 1,000%, surely that isn't equality under the law?

I am all for capitalism, but there also can be limits.

Americans can't seem to get equal application of law when money comes into it.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: chr0naut

By applying the law equally and fairly.

Thats litterally the only way, any other way leads to distrust unrest and appeareance of favoritism.

So, should, for instance, religious organizations be tax exempt? Surely that is not treating them with equality under the law. And considering the number of very large businesses that purport to be 'religious organizations', shouldn't something be done about that?

And what of those Fortune 500 companies that, because they can pay some smart accountants and lawyers (that everyone else can't afford), pay almost no tax on their incredible profitability. Surely that's not equality under the law?
And what of the inequality of medical and health services where the cost of fairly mundane stuff gets inflated by 1,000%, surely that isn't equality under the law?

I am all for capitalism, but there also can be limits.

Americans can't seem to get equal application of law when money comes into it.

That's literally the definition of the law. Tax code was written, it's law. And if CPA'a and smart accountants can find ways to use the law to the advantage of their clients, it's exactly what they are paid to do and what the law allows.

Your grasp on America is weak. Perhaps you should stick to Kiwi garbage.

a reply to: chr0naut

You blame capitalism I blame people, it won't matter what system money will change the outcome

At least under capitalism there is a chance to improve your outcome.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: chr0naut

You blame capitalism I blame people, it won't matter what system money will change the outcome

At least under capitalism there is a chance to improve your outcome.

People are always the corrupt denominator, and it's always amazing to me how those who advocate for this or that system can fail to see that when tasked with it.

The only real question is in which system is the power mostly in the hands of each individual? Since humans are the element of corruption that lie within any system, then the personal freedom to move away from another corrupt individual to the greatest degree possible should be the factor that decides which system a person chooses.

There is no system which vests complete control in the system that does this. After all, it is and always will be humans who will run the system. One or more corrupt humans in the system will make it impossible for the rest to escape abuse. And if there is one thing any thinking human knows -- corrupt humans seek power, and power corrupts.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: chr0naut

You blame capitalism I blame people, it won't matter what system money will change the outcome

At least under capitalism there is a chance to improve your outcome.

People are always the corrupt denominator, and it's always amazing to me how those who advocate for this or that system can fail to see that when tasked with it.

The only real question is in which system is the power mostly in the hands of each individual? Since humans are the element of corruption that lie within any system, then the personal freedom to move away from another corrupt individual to the greatest degree possible should be the factor that decides which system a person chooses.

There is no system which vests complete control in the system that does this. After all, it is and always will be humans who will run the system. One or more corrupt humans in the system will make it impossible for the rest to escape abuse. And if there is one thing any thinking human knows -- corrupt humans seek power, and power corrupts.

That was good.

a reply to: ketsuko

All 'ism's' are well intentioned - maybe apart from Nazism, Fascism etc - and in theory would lead to a better society.

But as you say, they all go to rat # for one reason: human beings.

I will always be an Anarchist at heart but I know 100% that there will be people who seek to use, manipulate, exploit and control others for their own benefit.

I also consider myself Agnostic - a discussion for another time and place - but I acknowledge that same again; most religions are well intentioned and aim to prepare people for their respective after lives etc but many seek to improve the here and now in some little way.
But its people who twist the message, who use their positions within their faiths for their own personal gain or their interpretations of the original message.
Their blind faith drives them to impose their beliefs on others.....all largely contrary to the messages originally preached or taught.

Until their is a significant step change in the collective human psyche all belief systems will be flawed for the simple reason that we are flawed.

That doesn't mean to say that what we have at present can't be improved upon and that we shouldn't work for change.

I think its important that people should be allowed to practice their faith in their respective places of worship.....but I also think common sense social distancing protocols should be followed at all times during this damned outbreak.