It was clearly labeled "opinion".

@snytiger6 True, but the “scientifically illiterate” remark applies only to CNN’s writer. The ruling was scientifically literate and said more than that in months there had been no (zero) infections at the churches or synagogue.

If the ruling was scientifically illiterate, then I think that does speak to the scientific literacy of the judges who made it.

@snytiger6 But was CNN’s opinion piece correct?

You can do as theists do—accept CNN’s writer as an authority, like a preacher, and believe what he wrote. (Did you do this?)
Or you can do as the Court did—accept the testimonny which the lawyers give under oath, and decide.

Btw, Aquinas and the 13th century Scholastics held that everything in print was true. Skepticism and the scientific revolution came several centuries later.

@snytiger6 Are you too busy to reply to my above query?

I hope my asking again doesn’t anger you. Do you believe the CNN headline that the Supreme Court’s ruling was scientifically illiterate?

@yvilletom I agree with the headline. The decision wasn't based on scientific fact(s), and it will cost lives. They basically undid what was just a temporary pandemic response, which would have ended with the pandemic, and have only insured that more people will get sick, some of which will die.

So, the decision was not scientifically sound, and yes could be considered to be scientifically illiterate.

I think it woudl have been wiser for the court to rule that the policy must end when the pandemic ends.

So, under your vaunted Constitution you HAVE the right to infect as many others as you see fit, is that it?

@Triphid Under OUR 'vaunted constitution' we have rights codified and liberties to exercise them sometimes curtailed TEMPORARILY or marginally for good cause like public health, safety and welfare. Equal protection and application are also required.

You don't cherry pick who's liberties are curtailed whilst turning a blind eye to or supporting liberties of others. If deluded Antifa and BLM vermin are not prohibited from gathering because of First Amendment protection, theologically deluded morons cannot be discriminated against by prohibiting exercise of THEIR rights under the SAME amendment.

Incidentally, the amendment also protects your right to make asinine comments.

@Silver1wun Sir, I can make comments as I see fit whether or not your Constitution permits SINCE I AM an Australian Citizen both by heritage and BIRTH.
That, my good Sir, may well be difference between us and the U.S.A. in that we ARE FREE.

@Triphid The scope of our discussion and comments here began and remains the City of New York located within the United States of America. If you deign to make comments on events and (obviously) things about which your knowledge is woefully deficient it is your prerogative and I took no issue with it.

Neither do I have to politely ignore the missing elements and hypocrisy on full display in your misinformed and misleading meddling opinions about OUR domestic affairs. That you know bugger all deserves disclosure.

Have a g'day.

@Triphid This whole mask debate reminds me of the smoking debate. Same principles.

@Silver1wun And, imo, so say you.
Though I may live in Australia I do keep myself well up to date on things, etc, around the world, ergo I do merely live with head in the sand nor wedge firmly up my arse as some seem to do.

@Triphid Still within the context of this discussion, your appalling lack of knowledge/understanding isn't related to up-to-date things, but history both factually and philosophically. A watershed advancement in recognition of fundamental, individual human rights as sourced beyond government to the extent that they were codified clearly differentiates us from other 'free' former colonies; indeed all other self-governing entities in human history.

We aren't discussing 'around the world' but, to repeat, the USA as it pertains to New York. The old world atavistic standards presiding over other places in the world do not apply.

@Silver1wun Ah yes the U.S.A. praise be unto it, peace-loving, filled with brotherhood, compassion, kindness, generosity and since it was first formed has had involvement in MORE wars both with itself, its neighbours AND its OWN Native Peoples than most other Western Countries in the last 200+ years.
Oh what a TRULY wonderful example to the rest of the world the U.S. A. is.

@Triphid You're the gift that just keeps on giving. Your brain-washed propaganda still has nothing to do with a Supreme Court ruling on the State of New York. We did a Hell of a lot more to pull England's nuts out of the fire twice in the last century than Australian brawling drunks ever even thought to do. I'm not going to follow this, fun though it IS because it is so utterly off-topic.

@Silver1wun Hang on a minute there.
Exactly where and WHEN did the U.S. join in with the Allies in WWI, about late 1917-early 1918 I seem to remember, A.N.Z.A.Cs were in from 1915 in Gallipoli and some were over in Europe as early as 1914 at THE BEGINNING btw.
Your lot ONLY joined in WWII AFTER the Japs bombed Pearl Harbour and the main concentration of your efforts were in the Pacific Theatre, a little in the African Front against Rommel and his Afrika Corps until the front was opened into Italy via Sicily then when the Normandy Invasions started.
Btw, WWII started in 1939 in actual fact, not AFTER Pearl Harbour and Aussies and other Commonwealth Forces were ALREADY fighting from the beginning btw.
Read a bit of ACTUAL History for a change please.

You better believe it!!

And since, to cite their so-called 'Holy(???) Book' where it states clear, " Where one or more may be gathered to pray, etc, so shall I be there...."
Ergo, given that statement Churches, etc, ARE NOT required and are needless in fact are they not?

No use trying to reason with ignoramuses.