A #StayAtHomeOrder order might not violate the #FirstAmendment #righttofreeexercise of #religion, or it might. Candidly, the answer to the question of whether it does so depends entirely on the contents and stated motivation of the Order.
Since the #SCOTUS decided #EmploymentDivisionvSmith, it has been a constitutional truism that #neutrallaws of #generalapplicability can, as an incident of their nature and scope, tread on religious exercises without violating the Free Exercise Clause.
So, for example, a city might adopt a zoning ordinance, and create an #R1district defined as residential single-family dwellings only.
Homes could be built in this zone, but not barbershops, bowling alleys, temples, churches, libraries, etc.
Homes could be built in this zone, but not barbershops, bowling alleys, temples, churches, libraries, etc.
That kind of rule is neutral as to religion. It doesn't select religious uses for a special benefit or extra limitation.
And it's generally applicable. It applies throughout the zone to everyone within it.
And it's generally applicable. It applies throughout the zone to everyone within it.
So, you can see, there are lots of laws that would NOT be found to violate religious freedom laws because, like the R-1 zoning rule, they don't specially target or benefit religion and they apply to virtually everyone.
But not every law is written in this way.
And when laws are not written deliberately to be neutral as to religion and religiously motivated conduct, then those who write such laws risk treading on the right to free exercise of religion.
And when laws are not written deliberately to be neutral as to religion and religiously motivated conduct, then those who write such laws risk treading on the right to free exercise of religion.
And when laws are not written deliberately to apply to everyone on the same terms, then those who write such laws risk treading on the right to free exercise of religion.
So, it turns out, you have to examine the legal framework of a governor's "stay at home" or "shelter in place" order before reaching any firm conclusion about whether such an order could be said to violate the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.
But I've read Governor "Black Face" Northam's order and I've read Governor Cooper's Order.
Both, it strikes me as obvious, suffer from the problem of EXCEPTIONS and EXEMPTIONS that swallow the rule.
Both, it strikes me as obvious, suffer from the problem of EXCEPTIONS and EXEMPTIONS that swallow the rule.
For example, here in NC, Governor Cooper's stay at home order treats ABC stores as essential businesses and they can remain open for the sale of spiritous liquors. 
Now, in NC too, the Governor's stay at home order doesn't prohibit attending worship services at houses of worship:
On the other hand, Governor Northam's stay at home order directly targets gatherings for religious purposes such as worship:
Yet the "essential" service of selling alcohol to the public will proceed uninterrupted:
Now, there's not likely to be a single correct answer to the question of whether or not the First Amendment prohibits Governor Northam from closing houses of worship.
But the answer "No" becomes more and more likely the correct answer as the number and diverse nature of businesses allowed to remain open increases.
#freeexerciseinthetimeofcovid19
#religiousfreedom
#governmenttyrannyoftenresemblesbureaucracy
#freeexerciseinthetimeofcovid19
#religiousfreedom
#governmenttyrannyoftenresemblesbureaucracy
@threadreaderapp unroll
