Funny how much a parallel that is with American professional wrestling.
WWF:"We're a legitimate sport, everything is real!"
IRS:"Well, then, we need to raise your taxes."
WWF:*"Like I said, we are entertainment, we got the drama and the scripts!"
The Hooters restaurant chain had a similar dilemma a few years back. To get around sex-discrimination laws, they argued that they were a "sexual entertainment" company, and so HAD to hire only females of a certain bust-size for their wait staff.
Soon after, some anti-Hooters activists launched a campaign to get minors banned from the diners, on the grounds that kids had no business being in a "sexual entertainment" establishment. Not sure how that all panned out.
Don't sexual entertainment venues have different licensing and zoning requirements to ordinary restaurants?
Well, IANAL, but my guess would be that depends on local laws, whereas I think Hooters anti-discriminatiom tussle was at the federal level.
And I'm not sure if "sexual entertainment" was an official legal term, or just the way they described themselves in the relevant proceedings, to explain why they thought they deserved an exemption. I do remember the term being used in news articles encapsulating their position.
My informal guess would be that the law would usually consider Hooters to be sexual entertainment in the sense that eg. the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition is sexual entertainment: enough that they can justify hiring only female models of certain body-type, but not enough that it needs to be kept on the top-shelf away from kids.
In other words they get to have it both ways. Pretend to be a family restaurant, and pretend to be a gentleman's club, depending on which laws they're trying to skirt.
Funny how much a parallel that is with American professional wrestling.
WWF:"We're a legitimate sport, everything is real!"
IRS:"Well, then, we need to raise your taxes."
WWF:*"Like I said, we are entertainment, we got the drama and the scripts!"
The Hooters restaurant chain had a similar dilemma a few years back. To get around sex-discrimination laws, they argued that they were a "sexual entertainment" company, and so HAD to hire only females of a certain bust-size for their wait staff.
Soon after, some anti-Hooters activists launched a campaign to get minors banned from the diners, on the grounds that kids had no business being in a "sexual entertainment" establishment. Not sure how that all panned out.
Don't sexual entertainment venues have different licensing and zoning requirements to ordinary restaurants?
Well, IANAL, but my guess would be that depends on local laws, whereas I think Hooters anti-discriminatiom tussle was at the federal level.
And I'm not sure if "sexual entertainment" was an official legal term, or just the way they described themselves in the relevant proceedings, to explain why they thought they deserved an exemption. I do remember the term being used in news articles encapsulating their position.
My informal guess would be that the law would usually consider Hooters to be sexual entertainment in the sense that eg. the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition is sexual entertainment: enough that they can justify hiring only female models of certain body-type, but not enough that it needs to be kept on the top-shelf away from kids.
In other words they get to have it both ways. Pretend to be a family restaurant, and pretend to be a gentleman's club, depending on which laws they're trying to skirt.
That, I think, was the criticism from their detractors, yeah.
Another classic example of legal double-dipping was when the authors of The Holy Blood And The Holy Grail sued Dan Brown for using their theories to write The Da Vinci Code. Brown's lawyers replied that authors of historical novels are allowed to use non-fiction in their research, and since non-fiction was what the Holy Blood boys had previously claimed to be writing, it was too late to reverse themselves. Brown won.
THBaTHG and TDVC are both works of fiction: the difference between the two is that where the first does a reasonable job of purporting to be genuine history while being an enjoyable read, the latter tries to weld together historical fiction with the type of fiction written by Robert Ludlum and ends up an over-long mess.
Is it true that in Floria church services are designated as “essential activities” and can’t be banned? Will they be holding Easter services? (not online).
Can’t speak to Florida, but here (North Carolina) churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and the like are considered essential. But in the context of religious bodies, essential means that clergy and other people necessary to stream services or the like may be in the church (or church-equivalent). But there cannot be more than 10 people present, and they are expected to practice social distancing.
Another classic example of legal double-dipping was when the authors of The Holy Blood And The Holy Grail sued Dan Brown for using their theories to write The Da Vinci Code. Brown's lawyers replied that authors of historical novels are allowed to use non-fiction in their research, and since non-fiction was what the Holy Blood boys had previously claimed to be writing, it was too late to reverse themselves. Brown won.
THBaTHG and TDVC are both works of fiction: the difference between the two is that where the first does a reasonable job of purporting to be genuine history while being an enjoyable read, the latter tries to weld together historical fiction with the type of fiction written by Robert Ludlum and ends up an over-long mess.
Well, quality aside, TDVC made a shitload more money than Holy Blood, which must have REALLY irked the writers of the latter. I'm guessing that's something that helped inspire the lawsuit.
And of course, the judge had a good time by including a coded message in his verdict.
Is it true that in Floria church services are designated as “essential activities” and can’t be banned?
That was my concern, Boogie.
Many of us have this idea that the state is supposed to be secular, in the sense of serving believers and non-believers equally. As soon as the state judges any religious activity to be either essential or non-essential, it's coming down on one side or the other, ceasing to be neutral.
I've always been confused about the USA being supposedly a secular state. For a start, all the currency bears the words In God we trust, then there's the Pledge of Allegiance (one Nation under God), all presidents in living memory have stressed their religious faith/belief etc. With all that in mind, how can the USA be described as secular?
I've always been confused about the USA being supposedly a secular state. For a start, all the currency bears the words In God we trust, then there's the Pledge of Allegiance (one Nation under God), all presidents in living memory have stressed their religious faith/belief etc. With all that in mind, how can the USA be described as secular?
Well, it depends what you mean by "secular". Legally speaking, the USA, even with God on the pennies and in the Pledge, is still way more secular than the UK, with its state church, or even Canada, with religious school boards in its largest province and a couple of the smaller ones, not to mention God in its anthem.
But in terms of the attitudes and outlooks of the average yokel, yes, the US is far more religious than most other western nations. This leads to the seemingly paradoxical situation where you can't have prayer in schools, but politicians will pander to god-fearing sentiment in the general public by pushing laws(eg. against gays and abortion) clearly meant to encode religious views, but technically in compliance with the 1st Amendment because they don't outright mention religion.
Going to "essential services" A local report some time ago said that in Washington State, marijuana shops are providing an essential product just like food or chocolate. I had to ask if that is so why is our local chocolate shoppe closed? I am much more disposed to chocolate (which happens to affect the same receptors of the brain as cocaine) than marijuana which leaves an unbelievable amount of tar in the lungs.
Going to "essential services" A local report some time ago said that in Washington State, marijuana shops are providing an essential product just like food or chocolate. I had to ask if that is so why is our local chocolate shoppe closed? I am much more disposed to chocolate (which happens to affect the same receptors of the brain as cocaine) than marijuana which leaves an unbelievable amount of tar in the lungs.
Don't most cannabis shops sell edibles? It only tars the lungs if you smoke it.
Going to "essential services" A local report some time ago said that in Washington State, marijuana shops are providing an essential product just like food or chocolate. I had to ask if that is so why is our local chocolate shoppe closed? I am much more disposed to chocolate (which happens to affect the same receptors of the brain as cocaine) than marijuana which leaves an unbelievable amount of tar in the lungs.
Marijuana is used to treat medical conditions, I would think this is why they are considered essential
Going to "essential services" A local report some time ago said that in Washington State, marijuana shops are providing an essential product just like food or chocolate. I had to ask if that is so why is our local chocolate shoppe closed? I am much more disposed to chocolate (which happens to affect the same receptors of the brain as cocaine) than marijuana which leaves an unbelievable amount of tar in the lungs.
Marijuana is used to treat medical conditions, I would think this is why they are considered essential
That may be true, but who's to say chocolate can't be used for medical reasons?
Myself, I have tried CBD for my back pain. Did not do anything for me. But I know people with Glaucoma and certain types of seizures swear by THC.
Going to "essential services" A local report some time ago said that in Washington State, marijuana shops are providing an essential product just like food or chocolate. I had to ask if that is so why is our local chocolate shoppe closed? I am much more disposed to chocolate (which happens to affect the same receptors of the brain as cocaine) than marijuana which leaves an unbelievable amount of tar in the lungs.
Is your choclatier closed because the state forced him to close, or is he closed because he's a responsible individual?
(There's plenty of brown substance available in grocery stores. I'll grant that most of it has the same relationship to chocolate as Miller Lite does to beer, but ...)
Going to "essential services" A local report some time ago said that in Washington State, marijuana shops are providing an essential product just like food or chocolate. I had to ask if that is so why is our local chocolate shoppe closed? I am much more disposed to chocolate (which happens to affect the same receptors of the brain as cocaine) than marijuana which leaves an unbelievable amount of tar in the lungs.
Is your choclatier closed because the state forced him to close, or is he closed because he's a responsible individual?
(There's plenty of brown substance available in grocery stores. I'll grant that most of it has the same relationship to chocolate as Miller Lite does to beer, but ...)
Our chocolatier is a woman. Her profession is not listed as an essential occupation.
I can't argue with your opinion about the substance sold in grocery stores.
I think that's not so much interesting as confused and anti-religious. I've noticed before that the Independent appears to take a very secularist editorial line, even more so than the Guardian.
Clearly some church leaders have wilfully and maliciously exploited the crisis for gain - Jim Bakker, for instance.
Others certainly don't seem to have very rational boundaries when it comes to the tradeoff between public health and traditional church services.
However, I think there is unwarranted stigmatisation of some churches:
The bishop told his congregation that he believes "God is larger than this dreaded virus" just days before Virginia Governor Ralph Northam urged people to avoid "nonessential" group gatherings.
I can't speak for the bishop's general stance, but the church's practice of maintaining congregational worship before official advice not to do so hardly looks blameworthy. Indeed, if you go over to the Covid-19 workarounds thread in Ecclesiantics you can see plenty of people on this forum arguing for maintaining as much congregational worship as is possible within official guidance and/or until it's actually prohibited.
The evangelical church in France which had a gathering of 2000 people of which over half turned out to be infected by Covid-19 and spread it right across France has been unfairly blamed for the high death figures here, despite the fact that the meeting was before any widespread concern about the virus or any official measures (it was in fact a doctor from the church that pestered the regional health authority to sit up and take notice).
This paragraph is particularly insidious:
Though many Christians have continued to practise their faith at home or by watching live-streamed services held in empty churches, places of worship across the US have been linked to several outbreaks.
A report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed how religious services in particular can be deadly vectors for the disease.
The CDC illustrated how a Chicago funeral became a "super-spreader event" that "played a significant role in transmission" of the virus.
Among several people who became ill following the service, one patient who developed Covid-19 symptoms two days after attending the funeral was hospitalised a week later and put on a ventilator. The patient later died.
That makes it sounds as if the funeral was held in defiance of official guidance. The CDC report says the funeral was in February 2020; the deceased did not die from Covid-19 (you have to dig into the report to find this out); unless I'm mistaken, that was well before there was any guidance against church gatherings in Illinois, where the lockdown started in late March.
It is a fact that religious gatherings can be particularly bad vectors for the disease, and irresponsible Christians are not going to help our reputation, but the potential for persecution (i.e. unwarranted discriminatory treatment on grounds of religious belief) is real (the leadership of the French church in question have received death threats) and coverage like this could fuel it.
Finding the appropriate post-lockdown strategy for churches is a real headache, and lunatic pastors aside, the opportunity for anti-religious interests to make life as difficult for religious groups as possible is very real.
the potential for persecution (i.e. unwarranted discriminatory treatment on grounds of religious belief) is real (the leadership of the French church in question have received death threats) and coverage like this could fuel it.
OTOH I think in the US talk of the potential for persecution is what is fuelling some of the responses from church leaders.
Finding the appropriate post-lockdown strategy for churches is a real headache, and lunatic pastors aside, the opportunity for anti-religious interests to make life as difficult for religious groups as possible is very real.
I think indifference may turn out to be as much of a challenge here as outright hostility. I'm sure the easiest solution from a public health official's perspective is simply to shut down all religious services indefinitely, alongside sports events, concerts, and movie theatres. Especially since it will likely be difficult to health authorities to monitor and enforce compliance even if many religious groups are committed to finding a way to re-open responsibly.
And as far as the US goes, I think the language of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." is pretty straightforward. [Italics added]
Sorry, to be clear, I was thinking more along the lines of indirect effect - if you keep an across-the-board ban on groups of more than a certain size then for many congregations that's going to be the same effect.
I actually don't think that's going to happen in my part of the world (Ontario), in part because there are legal protections against unjustified indirect effects and in part because I think most people are going to try very hard to make sure that if they do re-open as restrictions are loosened it will be in a way that minimizes risk. Which will probably involve restricting numbers, for some groups and spaces. Though if we get enough groups that just don't seem to care that could make life very difficult for everyone.
And as far as the US goes, I think the language of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." is pretty straightforward. [Italics added]
Nor would the Federal Govt have any more power than ours to prohibit people gathering in cinemas, theatres, sporting events etc. It's being done by State govts in some co-ordination with each other and with the Commonwealth. No equivalent to the First Amendment though. The Commonwealth looks after the borders.
And as far as the US goes, I think the language of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." is pretty straightforward. [Italics added]
A governor shutting the churches down isn't Congress making a law.
And as far as the US goes, I think the language of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." is pretty straightforward. [Italics added]
A governor shutting the churches down isn't Congress making a law.
I thought supreme court judgements had extended the Bill of Rights to state actions, or am I misremembering? (If it didn't, presumably things like Miranda rights wouldn't be US-wide)
That said, presumably all the lockdown measures limit freedom of assembly, which is also protected.
I think most people are going to try very hard to make sure that if they do re-open as restrictions are loosened it will be in a way that minimizes risk. Which will probably involve restricting numbers, for some groups and spaces. Though if we get enough groups that just don't seem to care that could make life very difficult for everyone.
The problem for many not-thinking-this-all-the-way-through churches is that they'll probaby think any group under a certain size is OK and promptly relaunch home groups which from a contagion point of view are probably far more dangerous than a larger congregation scattered in a much larger venue. We're thinking of our first gathering (as and when we're allowed to have one) being a home group - held in our (quite large) church premises.
And the problem for others will be that they see any restriction as a threat to their religious freedoms.
And as far as the US goes, I think the language of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." is pretty straightforward. [Italics added]
A governor shutting the churches down isn't Congress making a law.
I thought supreme court judgements had extended the Bill of Rights to state actions, or am I misremembering? (If it didn't, presumably things like Miranda rights wouldn't be US-wide)
That said, presumably all the lockdown measures limit freedom of assembly, which is also protected.
Yes, whatever those Amendments passed after the Civil War were later interpreted by the courts as applying to the states(and if I'm not mistaken, local governments). Hence, eg. all abortion laws have to be in line with Roe v. Wade.
And as far as the US goes, I think the language of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." is pretty straightforward. [Italics added]
A governor shutting the churches down isn't Congress making a law.
@mousethief that particular pilpul wouldn't work here, and I'd be surprised if it does in the US. To UK jurisprudence , if Congress expressly can't make a law doing X, then nobody else has any derivative authority to do such a thing.
Even here in Wales, the constraints been pit on movement and exercise are slightly different from those imposed by the UK Government, whose authority in these matters seems to affect England alone. In fact the whole crisis has been a bit of a test for devolution around the UK, as the legal and health situations are different in each of the four nations.
I gather that most of the Americans who are protesting places of worship being shut down are probably at the fund/evo end of the Christian spectrum. (Though I read the pope is upset that Italy won't let churches reopen.)
I suspect there's a lot of jumbled End Times stuff mixed in with their mindset. E.g. Biblical and other predictions of horrible persecution of Christians. (I doubt they've speculated about T being the anti-Christ. I'm not saying he is, but the title sort of fits in an off-kilter way.) As I said at another time, the idea that T is some kind of real, chosen-by-God Messiah, even maybe adopted by God, is absolutely warned against by Jesus. Paraphrase: "Many will say 'he is here', 'no, look, he's over there". And--don't remember for sure whether this was Jesus, Paul, or John (or George, or Ringo )--but that the anti-Christ might "even deceive the very elect".
They may also be trying to win God's favor, particular if they don't believe "once saved, always saved"*. If they believe in the Rapture (Christians being literally caught up together to Heaven), and they happen to believe in the Pre-Tribulation version, they may be expecting to be raptured at any time soon.
I wonder when/if they'll figure out a) it's not just places of Christian worship; and b) it's not just places of worship that are closed.
*My childhood church leaned that way, if for no other reason than to stop the constant worry some people had about hell. I'm grateful for it...though I still sometimes wondered if I was saved in the first place. But that's a whole 'nuther "Oprah".
Comments
In other words they get to have it both ways. Pretend to be a family restaurant, and pretend to be a gentleman's club, depending on which laws they're trying to skirt.
That, I think, was the criticism from their detractors, yeah.
Another classic example of legal double-dipping was when the authors of The Holy Blood And The Holy Grail sued Dan Brown for using their theories to write The Da Vinci Code. Brown's lawyers replied that authors of historical novels are allowed to use non-fiction in their research, and since non-fiction was what the Holy Blood boys had previously claimed to be writing, it was too late to reverse themselves. Brown won.
That's some clever lawyering.
And plunging necklines on T-shirts that are a couple of sizes too small IMHO.
I was picking up on the post immediately above mine.
I guess your joke kinda went bust.
Well, quality aside, TDVC made a shitload more money than Holy Blood, which must have REALLY irked the writers of the latter. I'm guessing that's something that helped inspire the lawsuit.
And of course, the judge had a good time by including a coded message in his verdict.
t.u.
Far too subtle....
Breast milk?
:killingme:
Hey, I have been around the block several times.
What? You referring to the required uniform for the waitresses at Hooters.
Isn't kerb-crawling illegal ?
That was my concern, Boogie.
Many of us have this idea that the state is supposed to be secular, in the sense of serving believers and non-believers equally. As soon as the state judges any religious activity to be either essential or non-essential, it's coming down on one side or the other, ceasing to be neutral.
Well, it depends what you mean by "secular". Legally speaking, the USA, even with God on the pennies and in the Pledge, is still way more secular than the UK, with its state church, or even Canada, with religious school boards in its largest province and a couple of the smaller ones, not to mention God in its anthem.
But in terms of the attitudes and outlooks of the average yokel, yes, the US is far more religious than most other western nations. This leads to the seemingly paradoxical situation where you can't have prayer in schools, but politicians will pander to god-fearing sentiment in the general public by pushing laws(eg. against gays and abortion) clearly meant to encode religious views, but technically in compliance with the 1st Amendment because they don't outright mention religion.
For those who didn't, please PM me (not) for details of my very cheap and efficacious Irony-O-Meter Recalibration Service...
Don't most cannabis shops sell edibles? It only tars the lungs if you smoke it.
That may be true, but who's to say chocolate can't be used for medical reasons?
Myself, I have tried CBD for my back pain. Did not do anything for me. But I know people with Glaucoma and certain types of seizures swear by THC.
Is your choclatier closed because the state forced him to close, or is he closed because he's a responsible individual?
(There's plenty of brown substance available in grocery stores. I'll grant that most of it has the same relationship to chocolate as Miller Lite does to beer, but ...)
Our chocolatier is a woman. Her profession is not listed as an essential occupation.
I can't argue with your opinion about the substance sold in grocery stores.
Clearly some church leaders have wilfully and maliciously exploited the crisis for gain - Jim Bakker, for instance.
Others certainly don't seem to have very rational boundaries when it comes to the tradeoff between public health and traditional church services.
However, I think there is unwarranted stigmatisation of some churches: I can't speak for the bishop's general stance, but the church's practice of maintaining congregational worship before official advice not to do so hardly looks blameworthy. Indeed, if you go over to the Covid-19 workarounds thread in Ecclesiantics you can see plenty of people on this forum arguing for maintaining as much congregational worship as is possible within official guidance and/or until it's actually prohibited.
The evangelical church in France which had a gathering of 2000 people of which over half turned out to be infected by Covid-19 and spread it right across France has been unfairly blamed for the high death figures here, despite the fact that the meeting was before any widespread concern about the virus or any official measures (it was in fact a doctor from the church that pestered the regional health authority to sit up and take notice).
This paragraph is particularly insidious:
That makes it sounds as if the funeral was held in defiance of official guidance. The CDC report says the funeral was in February 2020; the deceased did not die from Covid-19 (you have to dig into the report to find this out); unless I'm mistaken, that was well before there was any guidance against church gatherings in Illinois, where the lockdown started in late March.
It is a fact that religious gatherings can be particularly bad vectors for the disease, and irresponsible Christians are not going to help our reputation, but the potential for persecution (i.e. unwarranted discriminatory treatment on grounds of religious belief) is real (the leadership of the French church in question have received death threats) and coverage like this could fuel it.
Finding the appropriate post-lockdown strategy for churches is a real headache, and lunatic pastors aside, the opportunity for anti-religious interests to make life as difficult for religious groups as possible is very real.
OTOH I think in the US talk of the potential for persecution is what is fuelling some of the responses from church leaders.
I think indifference may turn out to be as much of a challenge here as outright hostility. I'm sure the easiest solution from a public health official's perspective is simply to shut down all religious services indefinitely, alongside sports events, concerts, and movie theatres. Especially since it will likely be difficult to health authorities to monitor and enforce compliance even if many religious groups are committed to finding a way to re-open responsibly.
I actually don't think that's going to happen in my part of the world (Ontario), in part because there are legal protections against unjustified indirect effects and in part because I think most people are going to try very hard to make sure that if they do re-open as restrictions are loosened it will be in a way that minimizes risk. Which will probably involve restricting numbers, for some groups and spaces. Though if we get enough groups that just don't seem to care that could make life very difficult for everyone.
Nor would the Federal Govt have any more power than ours to prohibit people gathering in cinemas, theatres, sporting events etc. It's being done by State govts in some co-ordination with each other and with the Commonwealth. No equivalent to the First Amendment though. The Commonwealth looks after the borders.
A governor shutting the churches down isn't Congress making a law.
I thought supreme court judgements had extended the Bill of Rights to state actions, or am I misremembering? (If it didn't, presumably things like Miranda rights wouldn't be US-wide)
That said, presumably all the lockdown measures limit freedom of assembly, which is also protected.
The problem for many not-thinking-this-all-the-way-through churches is that they'll probaby think any group under a certain size is OK and promptly relaunch home groups which from a contagion point of view are probably far more dangerous than a larger congregation scattered in a much larger venue. We're thinking of our first gathering (as and when we're allowed to have one) being a home group - held in our (quite large) church premises.
And the problem for others will be that they see any restriction as a threat to their religious freedoms.
Yes, whatever those Amendments passed after the Civil War were later interpreted by the courts as applying to the states(and if I'm not mistaken, local governments). Hence, eg. all abortion laws have to be in line with Roe v. Wade.
I gather that most of the Americans who are protesting places of worship being shut down are probably at the fund/evo end of the Christian spectrum. (Though I read the pope is upset that Italy won't let churches reopen.)
I suspect there's a lot of jumbled End Times stuff mixed in with their mindset. E.g. Biblical and other predictions of horrible persecution of Christians. (I doubt they've speculated about T being the anti-Christ. I'm not saying he is, but the title sort of fits in an off-kilter way.) As I said at another time, the idea that T is some kind of real, chosen-by-God Messiah, even maybe adopted by God, is absolutely warned against by Jesus. Paraphrase: "Many will say 'he is here', 'no, look, he's over there". And--don't remember for sure whether this was Jesus, Paul, or John (or George, or Ringo
They may also be trying to win God's favor, particular if they don't believe "once saved, always saved"*. If they believe in the Rapture (Christians being literally caught up together to Heaven), and they happen to believe in the Pre-Tribulation version, they may be expecting to be raptured at any time soon.
I wonder when/if they'll figure out a) it's not just places of Christian worship; and b) it's not just places of worship that are closed.
*My childhood church leaned that way, if for no other reason than to stop the constant worry some people had about hell. I'm grateful for it...though I still sometimes wondered if I was saved in the first place. But that's a whole 'nuther "Oprah".