At least on its surface, I'm kinda okay with this 1000-person rule for several reasons: - I've already accepted that fire codes can legitimately limit the numb

At least on its surface, I'm kinda okay with this 1000-person rule for several reasons: - I've already accepted that fire codes can legitimately limit the number of people in a building. - The rule is agnostic with respect to the purpose of the meeting. E.g., it's not obviously being used to suppress political or cultural movements. - It has a real, plausible purpose for public safety. That being said, I can also see some valid reasons against it: - It sets precedent, which is a powerful factor in the U.S. court system. - The 1000-person rule seems a bit arbitrary. I would think the number needs to be much smaller for the effect to be meaningful. And I'm guessing something more nuanced is what's really needed, for example spacing between persons, air recirculation / flow rates, frequency of surface cleaning vs. # persons present, etc. - It implicitly discriminates what kinds of groups can meet as before. One salient example would be that Christian mega-churches and really large Roman Catholic parishes couldn't meet as before. - It also potentially prevents mass protest marches, depending on the wording of the ordinance, and how willing protestors are to ignore the ordinance.