Some churches in California reopened their doors for services on Sunday after the Supreme Court ruled last week that state orders banning indoor services during the pandemic appear to violate the constitution’s protection of the free exercise of religion.
“It’s not just our first amendment rights, it’s really our biblical mandate not to abandon the gathering with the saints,” Ché Ahn, senior pastor of Harvest Rock Church in Pasadena, said during Sunday worship services said.
The state’s ban on indoor services has been challenged in separate lawsuits by Harvest Rock Church and South Bay United Pentecostal Church in suburban San Diego, Chula Vista, and Friday’s order applied directly to them. But its legal logic would hinder the application of a similar ban to other churches.
Bishop Arthur Hodges, senior pastor at South Bay United Pentecostal Church, said he was “declaring a great victory.” The church still held indoor services despite the government’s government, but Sunday was the first time in months that it was able to do so legally.
“This is a giant step forward in confirming that Americans should never be forced to choose between obedience to God or their government,” Hodges said during Sunday’s service.
Other churches were still working out what the Supreme Court ruling meant to them.
The Los Angeles Archdiocese issued a statement on Saturday giving congregations the option to return to indoor worship services that “limit attendance to 25% capacity.” Until now, services have been held according to the requirements of the country and the state.
But because the archdiocese includes the provinces of Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles – and each province has issued its own restrictions on public gatherings – congregations have developed their own accommodations that meet the needs of their congregations.
In Los Angeles County, for example, the Department of Public Health issued a revised order in late December that allowed indoor worship services, as long as protocols for masking and physical distance were followed. (State attorneys told the Supreme Court that despite the move, the province does not have the authority to waive state rules.)
The archdiocese is still reviewing the court’s ruling, but spokesman Adrian Marquez Alarcon said Sunday that most churches have continued to provide outreach services where capacity is less limited.
“Outside, there is more room for social distance,” she said. “Pastors consider what their faith communities need and what they feel comfortable with.”
Father Ricardo Viveros of Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Atwater Village has been holding both indoor and outdoor fog since the end of December when the province eased its restrictions.
“I’m kind of a hybrid and want people to be comfortable,” he said. “But more want to go inside again and feel more comfortable about it.”
With social distance, his church can house 90 congregations indoors, and when more show up, they stand in the forecourt. The priests and deacons step outside to partake of Communion.
In the court ruling Friday, the six conservative judges in the majority agree that California has singled out churches for unfair treatment by placing stricter restrictions on them than on some businesses.
The judges granted an appeal from South Bay United, which repeatedly challenged state restrictions on church services, including the ban on singing and chanting. The ruling set aside rulings by federal judges in San Diego and San Bernardino, and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which upheld state orders despite earlier Supreme Court warnings.
However, the Supreme Court said that the state may limit the attendance of indoor services to 25% of the capacity of a building, and that singing and chanting may also be restricted.
The provinces of San Bernardino and Ventura have both said they will follow state guidelines and allow indoor church services at limited capacity. Orange County did not respond to a request for comment.
According to LA County, although it allows indoor church services, it encourages the houses of worship to continue to keep it outside or virtually.
“The required amendments, including the capacity constraints specified by the state and the requirement for people to wear masks and be physically far from a service, will help reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission, but do not eliminate it. not, “the provincial department of Public Health said in a statement Sunday.
In the Bay, Santa Clara County officials said inpatient services there will still be banned because their local health care has a different framework than that of the state.
The province had an average of 164 cases of coronavirus per 100,000 residents in the past week, according to The Times coronavirus detection, just over half the LA County rate of 319 cases per 100,000 residents.
“Unlike the state, Santa Clara County has never had rules specific to places of worship, and has never closed places of worship,” provincial councilor James Williams said Sunday. “Instead, we have general rules that apply to all types of events.”
The Department of Public Health on Sunday confirmed that all provinces should impose stricter restrictions than the state. In the Santa Clara County case, the separate restriction on meetings is maintained in two other court decisions on land that has not been submitted to the Supreme Court and that is not affected by the ruling, the department said.
The state issues industry-wide coronavirus safety guidelines, with places of worship and cultural ceremonies consisting of their own industry. Until the Supreme Court’s ruling, the state’s guidelines restricted that particular industry to extracurricular activities in provinces in the most restrictive, press level of the state’s four-phase reopening plan. A total of 58 provinces, except four, are in the press level.
The state allows some other industries, such as retail, shopping malls and personal care services, to work indoors with changes in press levels. Some conservative judges have seen opinions differ.
But rather than regulating businesses by operations, Santa Clara County regulates activities based on the level of risk involved, Williams said. The province allows all institutions, including places of worship, to have 20% capacity for certain types of activities, he said. And it bans all gatherings, defined as people who gather in a coordinated way for an event, regardless of type or purpose, since they moved to the press level in November.
“Our concern about meetings is not based on where you meet by chance, or why you meet by chance,” Williams said. “It’s related to the fact that gathering is a very risky activity, whether it’s a gathering that takes place in a place of worship or in a community center or in a retail environment.”
Golgotha Chapel in San Jose held church services Sunday despite the province’s announcement, as it did for many of the pandemic.
“What we are doing here is not so much as fighting against our country, but we are simply standing up for the right that God has given us,” senior pastor Mike McClure told congregations.
He set up the dispute over public health guidelines as a battle between the church and Satan, with holiness on the one hand and idolatry on the other.
“The state is trying to replace the church and create this fear so that we give up our freedom and give it up to trust them,” he said.
Santa Clara County filed lawsuits against the church and McClure in November, claiming they provided weekly indoor services to as many as 600 people while leaving out of account. public health rules such as masking and distancing. Although the county has received a preliminary injunction, the church continues to violate it, Williams said.
He said the church and McClure had twice been held in contempt of court and had accumulated about $ 2 million in fines – about $ 5,000 per offense per day. He does not expect the ruling of the Supreme Court to have any effect on the current case.
“Most of their offenses are about much more than just gathering indoors, although that’s one of the issues,” Williams said. “We’re talking about no face masking, no social distancing protocols, no singing – they basically violate every one of the basic safety protocols we have in place.”
In contrast, Williams said most of the worship houses follow the rules by holding extracurricular or virtual services.
“The vast majority of religious institutions in our community, they care a lot,” he said. “They care about their congregations. They care about the safety and well-being of the community and take COVID very seriously and understand that we are in a critical moment. ”
The author of the time, David G. Savage, contributed to this report.