• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Two Colorado churches win lawsuit against state's Covid-19 mask and crowd limit requirements

Tsuyu

Tsuyu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,631
As the US enters what experts say will be another Covid-19 surge, a federal judge ruled two Colorado churches don't have to limit how many worshippers come in and don't have to require them to wear face coverings.

Colorado set guidelines earlier this year for places of worship that include ensuring all attendees wear face coverings. Guidelines from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say places of worship should "encourage use of masks among staff and congregants." And as the virus now runs rampant across many US communities, experts have said face coverings and social distancing remain the country's most powerful tools against Covid-19 ahead of a vaccine.

www.cnn.com

Two Colorado churches win lawsuit against state's Covid-19 mask and crowd limit requirements

As the US enters what experts say will be another Covid-19 surge, a federal judge ruled two Colorado churches don't have to limit how many worshippers come in and don't have to require them to wear face coverings.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

But following a lawsuit against state and federal officials by Pastor Robert A. Enyart of Denver Bible Church and Pastor Joey Rhoads of Community Baptist Church, Judge Daniel D. Domenico sided with the churches and found the state's restrictions violate the Constitution.

The judge said that while the state may have made the decisions in good faith, "the Constitution does not allow the State to tell a congregation how large it can be when comparable secular gatherings are not so limited, or to tell a congregation that its reason for wishing to remove facial coverings is less important than a restaurant's or spa's," according to court documents.

The state's orders, court documents said, "treat houses of worship different from comparable secular institutions."
 
DeliciousSunnyD!

DeliciousSunnyD!

Member
Oct 31, 2017
9,627
Just more examples of a certain sect of religious people in this country thinking they are the law/above it. The end game if people like this get their way, is a form of Americanized Christian Sharia Law. It's fucking scary.
 
daegan

daegan

#REFANTAZIO SWEEP
Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,899
Ughhhhhh how the fuck do you even begin to justify this under the law
 
fade

fade

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,516
I don't understand. Doesn't this make health inspections and fire inspections unconstitutional as well?
 
Tokyo_Funk

Tokyo_Funk

Banned
Dec 10, 2018
10,053
"We demand our congrigation march to their deaths instead of being safe"

"Next we demand cliff railings to be removed because they impose on our freedom of movement"
 
mordecaii83

mordecaii83

Avenger
Oct 28, 2017
6,862
This country needs to stop treating religion as something that needs special rules and considerations.
 
Rory

Rory

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,159
Thatonedice1 said:
Time to go full tilt into the second wave. Nothing stops this covid train!!!!!!

..... Jesus Christ we are fucked.



Doubt it. Hasn't it been confirmed you can get it twice now?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You can get it multiple times, and despite surviving the first without any damage following can be worse up to death.

Further infections are not guaranteed to have less consequences on the body up to death.
 
Papajak

Papajak

Member
Oct 27, 2017
190
DeliciousSunnyD! said:
There's no logic here. It's just pure emotional/psychological power with these people.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I completely agree with what you wrote - except I think it applies to the posters in this thread. Instead of looking at the facts of the case, people are just lashing out because the plaintiff is a church/pastor.

Has anyone actually looked to the facts or legal reasoning of the case? Admittedly, the cnn article is light on specifics, but at the very least, it states that the ruling was based on the argument that the state imposed harsher regulations on places of worship than on secular enterprises- which is clearly unconstitutional.

This begs the question - did the state impose harsher restrictions on places of worship than regular businesses? The cnn article doesn't really give enough detail to answer this question

I did find a Denver Post article which went into a little more detail:

"Domenico dismissed most of their claims, but granted part of their request, agreeing they should be exempted from mask-wearing requirements if they interfere with their religious exercise, and from particular limits on indoor gatherings that do not apply to secular institutions.

In the ruling issued Thursday, Domenico found that those two state rules are more severe for religious institutions than for secular ones, and violate the congregants' right to religious freedom. State officials disputed the judge's interpretation of those health orders, arguing in an appeal that the judge "fatally erred" when he interpreted the law.

"The Constitution does not allow the State to tell a congregation how large it can be when comparable secular gatherings are not so limited, or to tell a congregation that its reason for wishing to remove facial coverings is less important than a restaurant's or spa's," Domenico wrote in the 44-page order."

So, two big points are made:

1) you can't require a place of worship to limit their gathering size when you do not place the same limit on secular gatherings.

2) you can't tell a congregation that their reason for removing masks is less important than a secular enterprise (the judge noted restaurants and spas in particular)

regarding point 1 - I agree 100%.It is unconstitutional to have different rules for e gatherings vs secular gatherings. On another site, I read that they limited religious gatherings to 10 people while they only required secular enterprises to 'socially distance'. At some point the governor proposed changing the religious limit to 50% capacity. It was unclear to me whether or not this change went through before the suit. Of course, it's irrelevant because it still places a different burden on places of worship.

Regarding point 2 - on this point, I'm a little less convinced. Mostly because I do t know why you would need to remove your mask at a religious gathering. Literally, I don't know what Christians, Muslims, and Jewish people do during their service that would require the mask to be removed. Even if I didn't work In the restaurant industry, I would appreciate why you would have to remove your mask to eat/drink. So I can understand a distinction between a place of worship and a restaurant. But a spa? I have a hard time understanding why the state should be able to allow you to take a mask off in a spa but in a church/temple/mosque. Don't misunderstand me - in my opinion, you shouldn't be able to take your mask off in any of those places. But you can't allow it in a spa but not in a place of worship.

T(fucking)L/D(even try to)R:

It seems likely that the laws, as they were written, disproportionately affect places of worship in a way that makes them unconstitutional.

On a side note- it would be great if someone would start a thread on how to utilize all of the tools that this site has. I see people's posts that have quotes, links, gifs, fucking movies and, for me, copy and paste is my final form. I can't compete with these kids. I would post that gif from the Simpsons where skinner asks is it me or the kids who are wrong but I don't know how.
 
DeliciousSunnyD!

DeliciousSunnyD!

Member
Oct 31, 2017
9,627
Papajak said:
.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If in fact the state is employing a double standard, then yes, they have a case. But I think that's just it, to me, this means that the state needs to more uniformly and consistently apply the law, rather than acknowledging there might be a double standard and allowing the churches to avoid enforcement.

Instead of allowing religious institutions to flout laws desired to protect the public from harm, the state instead should look to enforce the laws more stringently where any possible argument of 'double-standard' arises. A problem comes in when so many people within the law framework fall onto the side of religion and decide to interpret law and the enforcement of such with a preference for both religion and business.

The whole thing very much feels like, without diving in too deep, like the churches were looking for any kind of means to weaponize double standards/evidence of persecution.

For me, the state needs to slam all of the institutions, not allow them to be flippant. And the churches very much come across like little siblings who see their sibling peers do something that they aren't allowed to do, and then run to the parents to try and force the issue.

No matter what, it's an incredibly bad look.

My TL;DR: The state's number 1 priority should be public safety, NOT private interests, secular, business, or otherwise. And that a possible (perhaps favorably interpreted) double standard should not be grounds to allow the law to just be dismissed.
 
Last edited:
HardRojo

HardRojo

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
26,133
Peru
And when they die and face god in heaven they'll be like "But god, why did you summon me so early? I didn't see any signals" and god will be like "The signals were there you idiot, I made everyone wear masks and avoid mass gatherings!".
 
mordecaii83

mordecaii83

Avenger
Oct 28, 2017
6,862
Big_Blue said:
Uhh did you read the article? The exact opposite was happening. Religious institutions had harsher restrictions than secular establishments. That's definitely not constitutional. Cuomo lost the same case in NY.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Except it's false, the judge made the argument that similar secular gatherings weren't being restricted and I can 100% guarantee that's not the case. And I don't consider being in church to be similar to needing to remove a mask in order to eat.

And even if it were somehow "unfair", you would think a church of all places would care about the people it had under its roof.

Edit: I haven't paid attention to Colorado's specific safety measures so if I'm wrong and churches were the only places being asked to uphold these safety measures then fine, I'd just say that it's dumb that everywhere wasn't being held to that standard (except places you literally need to remove your mask like a restaurant).
 
Last edited:
Sanka

Sanka

Banned
Feb 17, 2019
5,778
Does the bible even dictate that you have to attend church every damn sunday? The fuck are they forcing this for, fucking knuckleheads.
What about all this love thy neighbor shit they've been preaching?
 

Deleted member 36054

Banned
Dec 12, 2017
4,652
mordecaii83 said:
Except it's false, the judge made the argument that similar secular gatherings weren't being restricted and I can 100% guarantee that's not the case. And I don't consider being in church to be similar to needing to remove a mask in order to eat.

And even if it were somehow "unfair", you would think a church of all places would care about the people it had under its roof.

Edit: I haven't paid attention to Colorado's specific safety measures so if I'm wrong and churches were the only places being asked to uphold these safety measures then fine, I'd just say that it's dumb that everywhere wasn't being held to that standard (except places you literally need to remove your mask like a restaurant).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Your edit is right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.