State to worshippers: Don’t make a joyful noise

Last Monday between 300 and 400 protesters gathered on the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. But they didn’t shout “defund the police”—they worshiped, sang, and prayed, reported Fox News.

The demonstrators were protesting Gov. Gavin Newsom’s decision to ban singing and chanting in churches. The move has sparked concern that other states may reimpose worship restrictions due to a surge of new COVID-19 cases. A trio of California churches sued on Wednesday, calling the rule an unconstitutional abuse of power.

Calvary Chapel of Ukiah, Calvary Chapel Fort Bragg, and Oroville’s River of Life Church contend that Newsom’s July 1 guidance banning singing violates their right to the free exercise of religion. The churches point out the state hasn’t restricted singing or chanting at protests or at nonessential businesses such as day camps, schools, and music and television studios.

“Singing and praying aloud as a body of Christ is an integral part of worship for believers,” the churches said in the 20-page complaint. “To prohibit group singing and chanting is to effectively prohibit corporate Christian worship.” The American Center for Law and Justice represents the churches.

Newsom, a Democrat, lifted worship restrictions on May 25 but reinstituted them after an increase in COVID-19 cases in recent weeks. The state argues church singing could spread the coronavirus through aerosol particles, though the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention removed the guidance that sparked that concern from its website in late May. On July 13, Newsom resurrected a gathering ban on all worship and other “nonessential businesses” in more than half of the state’s counties. A separate group of churches on Friday challenged those broader restrictions.

Newsom has supported anti-racism protests following the death of George Floyd even though they violate California’s mass gathering ban. The three churches challenging the singing restriction noted the governor encouraged the protests, saying in a news conference, “To those of you who want to express yourselves … God bless you. Keep doing it. Your rage is real.”

That inconsistent message is not lost on churches. Becket attorney William Haun said California should not single out singing in worship more than in other contexts: “Like we said in a Wisconsin case we handled, ‘The First Amendment protects both prayer and protest, and governments don’t get to pick and choose.’”

Haun noted that many states have taken a more cooperative approach to church during the pandemic. In Minnesota, Becket assisted Lutheran and Catholic churches in reaching a compromise with Gov. Tim Walz allowing them to reopen at reduced capacity. In New Mexico, which originally restricted in-person worship to five people, churches can now meet at 25 percent capacity. And even in Texas, where cases have surged, churches remain open. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton even issued a guidance letter on Friday telling religious private schools that local orders attempting to restrict reopening are invalid.

“What you see across the country is a recognition that religion is a crucial part of the lives of most Americans, and so worship should only be suspended in the most extreme of situations,” Haun said. That’s a message it seems California has yet to grasp.

Censorship costs

New York City has settled with an Orthodox Jewish psychotherapist for $100,000 to cover legal fees and expenses related to a 2018 ordinance banning so-called “gay conversion” therapy.

Dr. Dovid Schwartz sued in January 2019, contending the city violated the First Amendment by barring him from even talking with someone about unwanted same-sex attraction.

While opponents of such counseling often focus on horror stories of “shock” therapies and other unethical practices, Schwartz said he only listens and talks to clients. “Politicians have no right to censor my conversations with patients,” he wrote. “They have no right to intimidate my friends and colleagues into silence or force them to offer professional advice that only affirms same-sex behavior and identity.”

The city repealed the law last September, but many states and cities have similar, though often more narrowly crafted, restrictions on therapy for people who don’t want to be attracted to the same sex. Tampa, Fla., prohibited licensed counselors from providing voluntary talk therapy to minors with unwanted same-sex attractions. Marriage and family therapist Robert Vazzo is fighting the ordinance after the city appealed a federal court ruling striking it down.

“Sexuality is complicated,” Schwartz said. “Human nature is complicated. Because of this complexity, my patients deserve the option of therapy that isn’t censored by the government or disrupted by politics.” —S.W.

Beach ball ban kicked

In September 2019, freshman Sofie Salmon and some friends rolled around an oversized ball and invited students to write on it to promote free speech at the River Falls campus of the University of Wisconsin. School administrators told her she either needed to register as a student club or get advance permission.

The university backed down after receiving a letter from Alliance Defending Freedom counsel Caleb Dalton. It released a new policy this month affirming students’ right to gather and express themselves and removing any requirement to reserve time or space or belong to an official club.

University free speech zones have fallen from favor after facing many First Amendment challenges. A May 2019 study by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) found that between 2013 and 2018, the ratio of schools with free speech zones dropped from 1 in 6 to 1 in 10. FIRE reported 17 states prohibit campus free speech restrictions. —S.W.

Romanian churches press on

Romanian-language churches in Chicago continue to seek a court order barring Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker from reimposing his gathering ban that effectively shuttered churches for months. A federal appeals court panel upheld a lower court ruling denying the churches’ requests for an injunction. The churches filed a petition asking the court’s full complement of judges to hear their case. Pritzker, a Democrat, removed all restrictions on churches after the lawsuit was filed, but the plaintiffs argue he failed to make it absolutely clear that he would not reimpose the ban. —S.W.