Coronavirus-related, but doesn’t belong in Quarantine Zone - more of a constitutional debate:
Just two days ago, a church in Nevada saw a case decided before the Supreme Court: In a nutshell, Nevada regulations restricted churches to no more than 50 people (regardless of how large the church’s size capacity may be,) while allowing 50 percent occupancy for other institutions such as casinos. This promptly led to claims of discrimination and a double standard.
This Nevada legal order led to a SCOTUS challenge because, as Kavanaugh wrote, this means that a casino with a capacity for 500 occupants can let in as many as 250, while a church with identical size capacity could only let in fifty, a far lower percentage.
IANACL (I am not a Constitutional lawyer) but it seems to me that from a virus standpoint this is very inconsistent; the coronavirus doesn’t discriminate in infecting victims based off of whether they are in a church or casino; a victim is a victim. So to allow a far higher percentage of potential virus-spreading occupants into an indoor environment like a casino, but not in a church, is contradictory.
That being said…I can also understand the view that “We goofed up by allowing casinos to have 50% occupancy, but we shouldn’t screw things up further by allowing churches to do the same too, because two wrongs don’t make a right. We therefore have no choice but to apply an unfair double standard, because lives are at stake.” Does that sound like the actual reasoning behind the decision? (The Court ruled 5-4 against the church.)