# Supreme Court upholds California's Covid-19 Restrictions **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 30, 2020, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741 "2020-05-30T17:18:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2020, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/101 "2020-06-18T20:15:07Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > What is the difference between claiming that hunger strikes are a valid form of protest, versus claiming that online services are a valid form of worship? Turn your thinking around: we were discussing the specific gathering of people in physical houses of worship - online services are irrelevant. > > There’s no question that the state can ban public protests under reasonable circumstances, just as there is no question that the state can ban religious gatherings under reasonable circumstances. It’s part of the state’s police powers. The question is whether the present circumstances are reasonable, in particular, I question whether the state can pass the necessary strict scrutiny when it allows religious gatherings but bans public protests. I believe that specific question (sort of a reverse to the OP) is raised in _Bouferguen v. Cuomo_, currently filed in the Southern District of New York. The ban there is _much_ more strict - ten people - compared to California’s limit of one hundred. > > Not all movie screenings occur indoors, and certainly spectator sports can be outdoor events. The outdoor nature of these gatherings is not mentioned in the opinion, in fact, considerable attention is given to the proximity of the people gathered and the duration of the gathering: > “_Similar or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time. And the Order exempts or treats more leniently only dissimilar activities, such as operating grocery stores, banks, and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods._” > We can cut out the examples to see the main argument: > “_Similar or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular gatherings, […] where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time. And the Order exempts or treats more leniently only dissimilar activities, […] in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods._” > ~Max You have an odd way of going back and forth between the specific and general cases, depending on the argument you’re making. The specific type of protest we’re talking about are large, public protests. Those cannot be done by Zoom. It’s an open question whether the situation is severe enough that a state ban would pass constitutional muster. The church complaint was about indoor services, which are akin to classes, movies, concerts. Yes, movies and concerts can be inside or out, but the Supreme Court wasn’t comparing to those. However, there are alternatives to indoor church services – small private ones, ones done online, and outdoor services. Since there are alternatives for churchgoers, but not alternatives for the protesters (do I have to specify that we’re talking about the large, outdoor protests, and not hunger strikes, not some guy protesting his divorce and becoming a hermit, not my kids protesting eating vegetables and throwing a fit?), the Supreme Court said that these restrictions on indoor services are fine, and the outdoor protests are different enough that you can’t apply the SCOTUS reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2020, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/102 "2020-07-08T22:59:38Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > You have an odd way of going back and forth between the specific and general cases, depending on the argument you’re making. I haven’t noticed, actually… what do you mean? > [@RitterSport](#): > > Yes, movies and concerts can be inside or out, but the Supreme Court wasn’t comparing to those. […] > > Since there are alternatives for churchgoers, but not alternatives for the protesters […], the Supreme Court said that these restrictions on indoor services are fine, and the outdoor protests are different enough that you can’t apply the SCOTUS reasoning. I hope I have misunderstood your position and constructed a straw-man. I cannot understate how wrong I think this argument is. For the sake of argument only, I will admit that the Court did not have in mind outdoor activities when they listed “concerts” and “spectator sports” as being secular gatherings comparable to presumably indoor church worship. The Court explicitly said they were comparable because “large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time”. The Court did _not_ say that they are similar because they are all indoor activities. I argue (and **UltraVires** was probably attempting to argue) that outdoor protests are also activities where “large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time”. The Court’s point was that the state exempted or was more lenient only for dissimilar activieis “in which people neither congregate in large groups in close proximity for extended periods”. If the state of California actually offers exemptions or leniency for large outdoor political protests, I think that is in direct contradiction to the Court’s premise and it calls into question the logic of the entire ruling. Whether or not there are alternatives is irrelevant when I say it calls into question the Court’s ruling, which did not mention the presence or lack of alternatives for churchgoers. > [@RitterSport](#): > > The specific type of protest we’re talking about are large, public protests. You are specifically talking about large public protests. I pointed out that it is possible to protest online without physically gathering people. Your counter is that _we aren’t talking about online protests_. OK, fine by me. The plaintiffs in this case (and I) are specifically talking about large public worship services. You pointed out that it is possible to worship online without physically gathering. What stops me from countering, _we aren’t talking about online worship_? What is running through your head that justifies the distinction between the former and the latter? To me, the distinction appears arbitrary. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2020, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/103 "2020-07-08T23:17:22Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > Reading this **dissent** , it is clear that Kavanaugh is not a great thinker. You misspelled “op-ed”. And not even top-notch; this was at a Wayne Allyn Root kind of level. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2020, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/104 "2020-07-09T02:25:03Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > You are specifically talking about large public protests. I pointed out that it is possible to protest online without physically gathering people. Your counter is that _we aren’t talking about online protests_ . OK, fine by me. > > The plaintiffs in this case (and I) are specifically talking about large public worship services. You pointed out that it is possible to worship online without physically gathering. What stops me from countering, _we aren’t talking about online worship_ ? > > What is running through your head that justifies the distinction between the former and the latter? To me, the distinction appears arbitrary. A public protest is meant to reach people not in the protest, make their voices heard by others. A church session is meant for people in the church. An online protest will reach people in the Zoom meeting and not the broader public, so it’s essentially pointless. An online sermon will reach exactly who the pastor wants to reach – the members of her church. The distinction couldn’t be more clear and if you can’t see it, that’s on you. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2020, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/105 "2020-07-09T02:37:16Z")
How exactly does a public protest in one spot reach the broader public? Is the answer not the media? What’s stopping the media from picking up online protests? ~Max ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2020, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/106 "2020-07-09T10:29:01Z")
Because the media won’t care about an online Zoom meeting, it won’t draw in random passers-by who care about the issue, the visual impact won’t be the same, and large Zoom meetings make it impossible to hold a conversation. You couldn’t do any chants, because everyone is out of sync, you couldn’t show your signs. There’s a big visual difference between 5,000 or 10,000 people marching on city hall and a 5,000 person video call. Contrast this with a sermon, where there’s expected to only be one person talking, the pastor. That works fine for Zoom meetings. Sure, the singing parts may have to be curtailed or done on mute, but the sermon and teaching will be just fine. It’s astonishing to me that you can’t tell the difference. Plus, churches are welcome to hold their services outside anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2020, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/107 "2020-07-09T15:21:26Z")
It is only your opinion that a large or successful protest _needs_ to “draw in random passers-by” or have a “visual impact”, and even that the media wouldn’t cover an online protest. I think media coverage has more impact on the success of a protest than literal passers-by on the street - that is my opinion. And I mentioned a general strike as a form of protest which could take place at home - without gathering a crowd in a public place. If you get 5,000 workers to stay home on strike, the media _will_ try and report on the story. Likewise, it is only your opinion that religious services _do not need_ the congregation to be in close physical proximity. Maybe the communal singing is an integral part of the service. How is the church going to collect donations? Not everybody is set up or willing to make online payments, certainly not the same number of people who usually bring cash. It’s astonishing to me that you _still_ see a difference. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2020, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/108 "2020-07-09T15:24:33Z")
We’re not going to have a meeting of the minds here, so thanks for the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2020, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/109 "2020-07-09T17:28:40Z")
Aw, that’s too bad. Well, here is another relevant case to this thread: _Rev. Steven Soos v. Cuomo_, filed in the Northern District of New York. The judge, fully aware of the _Newsom_ opinion that sparked this thread, ruled that Gov Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio basically shot themselves in the foot by allowing protests and graduation ceremonies but still cracking down on churches and synagogues. Plaintiff’s application for a preliminary injunction was granted. Read the opinion [here](https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nynd.124613/gov.uscourts.nynd.124613.35.0.pdf). ~Max [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741.md?page=5)