4 ms·
The question isn't one of importance, but of the danger to individuals from partaking in the activity. Yes, speaking constitutionally, shopping malls are less i
by joshuamorton 6y ago
The question isn't one of importance, but of the danger to individuals from partaking in the activity. Yes, speaking constitutionally, shopping malls are less important than churches. But that doesn't matter if a church service is a religious concerts and concerts (religious or secular) aren't allowed.
- kmonsen 6y agoJust note that shopping malls are closed in California so that is not a reasonable argument. But for example Tesla manufacturing is reopened, is that a comparable activity? I think this whole case is clearly subjective and should not be of course. It would be useful to have a general rule what a church is comparable to.
- fastball 6y agoIt is obviously not purely a function of danger. It is a cost-benefit of danger/importance. Clearly importance is relevant to this discussion. Supermarkets are open everywhere because they are very important (vital), even though they might be a ripe vector for transmission. I would agree that on the graph of danger against importance, supermarkets are obviously going to be less dangerous and more important than church. But my point was that it's not clear where to draw the line on this graph, and even if you do have a clear line, I think church is going to be higher on the cultural importance scale than concerts or sporting events, so it could make the cut even if they do not.