[terry]

It is absurd to suggest that there are “acceptable“ and “unacceptable“ behaviors relating to what essentially is the same thing – outdoor gatherings. Either, from a spread standpoint, you can have them up to a certain level, or you cannot.  Obviously people should be masked. No matter what.   But please don’t say that it’s OK to have 100 people doing X but not OK to have 100 people doing Y outdoors. (Assuming equal masking and distancing) It makes no sense whatsoever from an epidemiological standpoint. It’s politics, pure and simple.

I think this description misses the substantive impact of the county's June 2 health order.

The order did not say "protests are acceptable, but outdoor religious services are not acceptable." Rather, the order approved both protests and outdoor religious services. The order established the same attendance limit for both types of events -- 100 people. From a health management standpoint, both events were treated as though they entailed similar risks. The only difference was a slight difference in the effective dates, which was quickly changed. 

I think a fair reading of the order is that the substantive provisions of the order treated protests and religious services similarly. The substantive similarity in treatment was more significant than the slight difference in effective dates, in my view.

Lex, I think you're reading an awful lot of ideological discrimination and malicious intent into a small difference in effective dates. To me, that difference seems more likely to have come about because the two different provisions approving religious services and protests were added to different appendices, probably at different times, without full coordination of the details. 

I attend church weekly and I would like to see normal worship services resume as soon as safely possible. I believe I am reasonably sensitive to discrimination against religious practice. In this case, I just don't see it. My main take-away from this order is that it approved outdoor services, not that it labelled them "unacceptable."

[terry]

It is absurd to suggest that there are “acceptable“ and “unacceptable“ behaviors relating to what essentially is the same thing – outdoor gatherings. Either, from a spread standpoint, you can have them up to a certain level, or you cannot.  Obviously people should be masked. No matter what.   But please don’t say that it’s OK to have 100 people doing X but not OK to have 100 people doing Y outdoors. (Assuming equal masking and distancing) It makes no sense whatsoever from an epidemiological standpoint. It’s politics, pure and simple.

I think this description misses the substantive impact of the county's June 2 health order.

The order did not say "protests are acceptable, but outdoor religious services are not acceptable." Rather, the order approved both protests and outdoor religious services. The order established the same attendance limit for both types of events -- 100 people. From a health management standpoint, both events were treated as though they entailed similar risks. The only difference was a slight difference in the effective dates, which was quickly changed. 

I think a fair reading of the order is that the substantive provisions of the order treated protests and religious services similarly. The substantive similarity in treatment was more significant than the slight difference in effective dates, in my view.

Lex, I think you're reading an awful lot of ideological discrimination and malicious intent into a small difference in effective dates. To me, that difference seems more likely to have come about because the two different provisions approving religious services and protests were added to different appendices, probably at different times, without full coordination of the details. 

I attend church weekly and I would like to see normal worship services resume as soon as safely possible. I believe I am reasonably sensitive to discrimination against religious practice. In this case, I just don't see it. My main take-away from this order is that it approved outdoor services, not that it labelled them "unacceptable."