We take issue with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling that exempts places of worship from New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s capacity restrictions. Particularly, we disagree with the argument from the Catholic and Orthodox Jewish complainants — and the language of the majority opinion — that churches are being unfairly treated compared to essential and even non-essential businesses.
Here’s our problem: Churches are not businesses.
Churches — and other places of worship — receive a variety of tax benefits specifically because they aren’t businesses. Churches “may enjoy several tax-related benefits, such as an exemption from federal income tax, exemption from applying for tax-exempt status, exemption from unemployment taxes and exemption from filing certain annual information returns,” according to the Journal of Accountancy. The IRS uses the term “church” loosely to refer to all places of worship that meet the criteria laid out to qualify for tax exemptions.
But the high court’s ruling is based on a direct comparison between permitted occupancy for churches and for businesses: “Both the Diocese and Agudath Israel maintain that the regulations treat houses of worship much more harshly than comparable secular facilities. … In a red zone, while a synagogue or church may not admit more than 10 persons, businesses categorized as ‘essential’ may admit as many people as they wish.” The Court is comparing apples to oranges.
Again, a church is not a business. Places of worship don’t sell basic necessities like food and toiletries. Churches do not provide expert medical care or access to public transportation. While the list of “essential” businesses cited in the ruling contains some industries of questionable importance, this ruling cannot stand on the basis of “comparable secular facilities” because all the “facilities” mentioned are businesses, which a church is not.
Side note: The ruling also stated that schools “are treated less harshly than the Diocese’s churches and Agudath Israel’s synagogues.” For the record, the same executive order that limited church attendance, particularly in red and orange zones, also closed schools in those same areas and forced them to go remote.
In addition to all that, indoor religious gatherings have been shown nationally to be superspreader events. Also, the occupancy restrictions the Supreme Court struck down were based on a rolling color-coded system, not unlike our own in West Virginia. When COVID-19 spread in the designated zone slowed, its color would change and limitations would ease. Which means that church attendance was not permanently or even indefinitely restricted.
Despite what the now highly conservative Supreme Court thinks, Cuomo’s executive order did not infringe upon people’s freedom of religion. At no point did it say that people in hot spots were no longer allowed to practice their faith. All it did was reduce the number of people who could be in a place of worship at the same time.
The Court’s justification for striking down Cuomo’s order was how churches were treated in comparison to businesses in the same area. But a church is still not a business. Regardless of whether the Supreme Court’s ruling is right or wrong, the logic and evidence used to justify its decision are faulty, and we take issue with that.
