Quote (thundercock @ Apr 14 2020 08:31pm)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutinyLaws dealing with worship would undoubtedly fall under strict scrutiny. There's obviously a compelling government interest,
but are the laws narrowly tailored? I think that's debatable.
I think the real question is, why aren't these places giving alternatives to their worshipers? Why aren't they holding MORE masses so that less people can attend each mass?
Law is literally debating. It is obviously debatable, however, based on case law it is not even close to narrowly tailored. This is one of the very few things pretty well established.
Rights, specifically exist for the reason that they do not go away just because it is untimely, inefficient, problematic, etc. etc. etc. otherwise they would not be rights.
The amount of civics teachers that failed to do their job in this country is sad.
This post was edited by LA-Leviathan on Apr 14 2020 09:04pm