[BigJohn043]

Color me confused.  There is no danger at all in letting a couple of hundred family members attend a game at the Rose Bowl.  It is outside and they will have tons of room to spread out.  This makes no sense.

OTOH, I understand the concern with a couple of hundred people traveling to the area.  But if that is the real problem then why haven't you shut down the airports and the hotels?

None of this makes sense.

I just read the order.  It is literally hysterical.  You aren't supposed to leave your house or gather with any other household.  OTOH, if you want to have a "mostly peaceful protest" / riot where thousands of people gather then that is totally fine.  Only in CA.....

[BigJohn043]

Color me confused.  There is no danger at all in letting a couple of hundred family members attend a game at the Rose Bowl.  It is outside and they will have tons of room to spread out.  This makes no sense.

OTOH, I understand the concern with a couple of hundred people traveling to the area.  But if that is the real problem then why haven't you shut down the airports and the hotels?

None of this makes sense.

I just read the order.  It is literally hysterical.  You aren't supposed to leave your house or gather with any other household.  OTOH, if you want to have a "mostly peaceful protest" / riot where thousands of people gather then that is totally fine.  Only in CA.....

[Goose]

Fair point.  Hawaii did institute a mandatory quarantine on people flying in from out of state, and even arrested a number of people for violating the quarantine.

https://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/news...rests.html

So, I suppose the state could have instituted a mandatory quarantine of anyone flying in from out of state.

BC

Yes, they could have. However it is much easier to do it in Hawaii where there are I think 7 public airports that have flights in/out of the state.

[Goose]

Fair point.  Hawaii did institute a mandatory quarantine on people flying in from out of state, and even arrested a number of people for violating the quarantine.

https://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/news...rests.html

So, I suppose the state could have instituted a mandatory quarantine of anyone flying in from out of state.

BC

Yes, they could have. However it is much easier to do it in Hawaii where there are I think 7 public airports that have flights in/out of the state.

[BostonCard]

I just read the order.  It is literally hysterical.  You aren't supposed to leave your house or gather with any other household.  OTOH, if you want to have a "mostly peaceful protest" / riot where thousands of people gather then that is totally fine.  Only in CA.....

You are not prohibited from leaving your house.

Nothing in this Order prevents any number of persons from the same household from leaving their residence, lodging, or temporary accommodation, as long as they do not engage in any interaction with (or otherwise gather with) any number of persons from any other household, except as specifically permitted herein.

While I agree that protests are probably higher risk than many other activities that are prohibited, restrictions on both protests and religious services would have been subject to litigation because they are protected by the first amendment.  While a well-crafted order probably could have been upheld, ultimately, it is probably not worth the aggravation.


BC

[BostonCard]

I just read the order.  It is literally hysterical.  You aren't supposed to leave your house or gather with any other household.  OTOH, if you want to have a "mostly peaceful protest" / riot where thousands of people gather then that is totally fine.  Only in CA.....

You are not prohibited from leaving your house.

Nothing in this Order prevents any number of persons from the same household from leaving their residence, lodging, or temporary accommodation, as long as they do not engage in any interaction with (or otherwise gather with) any number of persons from any other household, except as specifically permitted herein.

While I agree that protests are probably higher risk than many other activities that are prohibited, restrictions on both protests and religious services would have been subject to litigation because they are protected by the first amendment.  While a well-crafted order probably could have been upheld, ultimately, it is probably not worth the aggravation.


BC

[teejers1]

I just read the order.  It is literally hysterical.  You aren't supposed to leave your house or gather with any other household.  OTOH, if you want to have a "mostly peaceful protest" / riot where thousands of people gather then that is totally fine.  Only in CA.....

You are not prohibited from leaving your house.

Nothing in this Order prevents any number of persons from the same household from leaving their residence, lodging, or temporary accommodation, as long as they do not engage in any interaction with (or otherwise gather with) any number of persons from any other household, except as specifically permitted herein.

While I agree that protests are probably higher risk than many other activities that are prohibited, restrictions on both protests and religious services would have been subject to litigation because they are protected by the first amendment.  While a well-crafted order probably could have been upheld, ultimately, it is probably not worth the aggravation.


BC

Yeah, I'm sure that's what motivated CA regulators when coming up with the language they did . . .

[teejers1]

I just read the order.  It is literally hysterical.  You aren't supposed to leave your house or gather with any other household.  OTOH, if you want to have a "mostly peaceful protest" / riot where thousands of people gather then that is totally fine.  Only in CA.....

You are not prohibited from leaving your house.

Nothing in this Order prevents any number of persons from the same household from leaving their residence, lodging, or temporary accommodation, as long as they do not engage in any interaction with (or otherwise gather with) any number of persons from any other household, except as specifically permitted herein.

While I agree that protests are probably higher risk than many other activities that are prohibited, restrictions on both protests and religious services would have been subject to litigation because they are protected by the first amendment.  While a well-crafted order probably could have been upheld, ultimately, it is probably not worth the aggravation.


BC

Yeah, I'm sure that's what motivated CA regulators when coming up with the language they did . . .

[BostonCard]

Yeah, I'm sure that's what motivated CA regulators when coming up with the language they did . . .

Yeah, because ensuring organized church services can happen is also such a liberal priority.

BC

[BostonCard]

Yeah, I'm sure that's what motivated CA regulators when coming up with the language they did . . .

Yeah, because ensuring organized church services can happen is also such a liberal priority.

BC

[BigJohn043]

While I agree that protests are probably higher risk than many other activities that are prohibited, restrictions on both protests and religious services would have been subject to litigation because they are protected by the first amendment.  While a well-crafted order probably could have been upheld, ultimately, it is probably not worth the aggravation.


BC

FWIW, this is totally untrue.  The Supreme Court ruled against NY because they had specific restrictions on Churches that were in many ways not consistent with other forms of gathering.  In other words, a rule against all gatherings of any type would be totally fine.  They didn't need the exception they wrote in here.  Now anything can be subject to litigation.

[BigJohn043]

While I agree that protests are probably higher risk than many other activities that are prohibited, restrictions on both protests and religious services would have been subject to litigation because they are protected by the first amendment.  While a well-crafted order probably could have been upheld, ultimately, it is probably not worth the aggravation.


BC

FWIW, this is totally untrue.  The Supreme Court ruled against NY because they had specific restrictions on Churches that were in many ways not consistent with other forms of gathering.  In other words, a rule against all gatherings of any type would be totally fine.  They didn't need the exception they wrote in here.  Now anything can be subject to litigation.

[BostonCard]

Which part is totally untrue?  Nothing I wrote disagrees with your reply.  After all, I did write "While a well-crafted order probably could have been upheld..."

I think we have strayed beyond the remit of this board; I am happy to continue the discussion on the COVID-19 board if you'd like.

BC

[BostonCard]

Which part is totally untrue?  Nothing I wrote disagrees with your reply.  After all, I did write "While a well-crafted order probably could have been upheld..."

I think we have strayed beyond the remit of this board; I am happy to continue the discussion on the COVID-19 board if you'd like.

BC

[pefloresjr]

While I agree that protests are probably higher risk than many other activities that are prohibited, restrictions on both protests and religious services would have been subject to litigation because they are protected by the first amendment.  While a well-crafted order probably could have been upheld, ultimately, it is probably not worth the aggravation.


BC

FWIW, this is totally untrue.  The Supreme Court ruled against NY because they had specific restrictions on Churches that were in many ways not consistent with other forms of gathering.  In other words, a rule against all gatherings of any type would be totally fine.  They didn't need the exception they wrote in here.  Now anything can be subject to litigation.

Completely wrong.  NY prohibited gatherings that are similar to church like movies and parties.  They did not, however, limit the number of people who could "gather" while shopping at a mall and going to liquor stores.  The Supreme Court simply refused to acknowledge the distinction between the length and level of interaction that occurs in different types of gatherings.  In defense of the Supreme Court, there is much less leeway regarding specifically enumerated rights like religion, speech, and the right to gather so many of the emergency orders haven't been fully vetted by the courts or subject to a lot of legislative refinement. To get around that problem, California wisely allowed church and free speech events.  The court decision very clearly drove these exemptions.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

While I agree that protests are probably higher risk than many other activities that are prohibited, restrictions on both protests and religious services would have been subject to litigation because they are protected by the first amendment.  While a well-crafted order probably could have been upheld, ultimately, it is probably not worth the aggravation.


BC

FWIW, this is totally untrue.  The Supreme Court ruled against NY because they had specific restrictions on Churches that were in many ways not consistent with other forms of gathering.  In other words, a rule against all gatherings of any type would be totally fine.  They didn't need the exception they wrote in here.  Now anything can be subject to litigation.

Completely wrong.  NY prohibited gatherings that are similar to church like movies and parties.  They did not, however, limit the number of people who could "gather" while shopping at a mall and going to liquor stores.  The Supreme Court simply refused to acknowledge the distinction between the length and level of interaction that occurs in different types of gatherings.  In defense of the Supreme Court, there is much less leeway regarding specifically enumerated rights like religion, speech, and the right to gather so many of the emergency orders haven't been fully vetted by the courts or subject to a lot of legislative refinement. To get around that problem, California wisely allowed church and free speech events.  The court decision very clearly drove these exemptions.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[2006alum]

No comment :)

[2006alum]

No comment :)