(November 29, 2020 at 7:39 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:(November 29, 2020 at 5:57 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: That was actually a good ruling (though now moot) by the court, as the same restrictions were not placed on secular businesses in the same zones. If the law had been written to treat all public gatherings equally, it might have stood.
Boru
Not according to state which argued that its rules already treated houses of worship more favorably than activities it considered comparable, such as lectures, concerts, cinemas and sporting events, which are completely shut in high-risk zones.
They made a very selective argument. So-called ‘essential’ businesses (laundromats, grocery stores, etc) were allowed to operate at 25% capacity, while houses of worship were restricted to (IIRC) 10-50 people, regardless of capacity.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
