[BostonCard]

Curious, Doc did you read the SCOTUS decision (and the concurrences)?  Very limited actually.  Simply pit, it held that you can’t place more restrictive limitations on worship activities/facilities than secular ones.  Narrow ruling. Very easy to get around.  Also made it clear that restrictions are fine.  Just not more stringent than secular activity restrictions.  Stadiums, would not enter into the mix based on size etc. Unless you are having a worship service at a stadium :).

As I understand the ruling, the issue isn't the directive that restrictions not be more stringent than secular activity restrictions; I don't think that's all that controversial.  What I think the ruling opened the door for, however, is for arguments about what the analogous secular activity ought to be that forms the basis of comparison.  You might say that indoor religious services are comparable to indoor performances such as musicals or operas in that both can feature packed audiences and loud singing, and that the restrictions in NY are non-discriminatory because Broadway plays and movie theaters remain closed, but the petitioners held that church services are more analogous to “secular businesses that can open without restrictions, such as pet stores and broker’s offices and banks and bodegas.”

I think herein lies the problem, and because of it you will see state and local governments be gun-shy when it comes to restricting religious services, as California was in its most recent order, that exempted church services (and protests).

BC

[BostonCard]

Curious, Doc did you read the SCOTUS decision (and the concurrences)?  Very limited actually.  Simply pit, it held that you can’t place more restrictive limitations on worship activities/facilities than secular ones.  Narrow ruling. Very easy to get around.  Also made it clear that restrictions are fine.  Just not more stringent than secular activity restrictions.  Stadiums, would not enter into the mix based on size etc. Unless you are having a worship service at a stadium :).

As I understand the ruling, the issue isn't the directive that restrictions not be more stringent than secular activity restrictions; I don't think that's all that controversial.  What I think the ruling opened the door for, however, is for arguments about what the analogous secular activity ought to be that forms the basis of comparison.  You might say that indoor religious services are comparable to indoor performances such as musicals or operas in that both can feature packed audiences and loud singing, and that the restrictions in NY are non-discriminatory because Broadway plays and movie theaters remain closed, but the petitioners held that church services are more analogous to “secular businesses that can open without restrictions, such as pet stores and broker’s offices and banks and bodegas.”

I think herein lies the problem, and because of it you will see state and local governments be gun-shy when it comes to restricting religious services, as California was in its most recent order, that exempted church services (and protests).

BC