[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.