idk if specific details in Nevada make this case very different, but I think a good comparison here is a similar case from California, where churches whined about being shut down and the same lineup of judges told them 5-4 to STFU. In that case:
- California put a limit on church occupancy at the lower of 25% occupancy, or 100 people
- California did not put the same limit on business like grocery stores or banks, because they are fundamentally different activities: you enter a retail business, you buy ****, and leave, whereas in a church, you stand in close proximity to other people for hours while singing and projecting respiratory droplets
- John Roberts' opinion, very reasonably, talked about this, in the context of other activities banned by California's order:
Quote:
Although California’s guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent withthe Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. 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 pe-riods of time. And the Order exempts or treats more leni-ently 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.
Kavanaugh didn't care about the nature of the business at all, and didn't care that activities more like being in church (i.e. movie theaters, which are actually prob a bit safer than churches) were as or
more restricted than churches. Kav thought that
any business being more open than churches violated the First Amendment:
Quote:
The basic constitutional problem is that comparable secular businesses are not subject to a 25% occupancy cap, includ-ing factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries.
...
But the Church objects to a 25% occupancy cap that is imposed on religious worship services but not imposed on those comparable secular busi-nesses.
...
But absent a compelling justification (which the State has not offered), the State may not take a looser approach with, say, supermarkets, restaurants, fac-tories, and offices while imposing stricter requirements on places of worship.
"QED" says Kavanaugh (joined by Gorsuch and Thomas), bred from a fetus in a Federalist Society laboratory to write opinions like this while straight-up lying about what is a "comparable business" as well as the arguments the State put forth.
It's possible that the Nevada case is a little different - in particular, casino allowances sound corrupt af, typical Nevada - but the California case showed that SCOTUS has 4 judges who don't really give a **** what the circumstances are, they will always show a theocracy-level amount of deference to churches.