[teejers1]

isn't the issue that the supreme court just ruled that municipalities cannot restrict one sort of large gathering, e.g. churches, if they allow other large gatherings?  i would presume that scc isn't targeting basketball games. rather, they understand that if they allow a basketball game - an indoor gathering of about 15 players + 10 staff per team = about 50 persons - they can't then ban restaurants, etc., from serving 50 customers at a time indoors. even practice is an indoor gathering of about 25 persons. similarly, a football practice involves about 100 players and staff together in a locker room before and after practice.

Agree's with BC's legal take about the USSCt's decision, but am posting to note that 50 people at Maples is an entirely different animal than 50 people (or even 25) at the French Laundry (or any restaurant, I suspect), even though both are "indoors."

[teejers1]

isn't the issue that the supreme court just ruled that municipalities cannot restrict one sort of large gathering, e.g. churches, if they allow other large gatherings?  i would presume that scc isn't targeting basketball games. rather, they understand that if they allow a basketball game - an indoor gathering of about 15 players + 10 staff per team = about 50 persons - they can't then ban restaurants, etc., from serving 50 customers at a time indoors. even practice is an indoor gathering of about 25 persons. similarly, a football practice involves about 100 players and staff together in a locker room before and after practice.

Agree's with BC's legal take about the USSCt's decision, but am posting to note that 50 people at Maples is an entirely different animal than 50 people (or even 25) at the French Laundry (or any restaurant, I suspect), even though both are "indoors."