Why Do Casinos Have More Freedom than Churches?

 Many of us have wondered about, laughed about and scratched out heads about COVID laws since they first were rolled out in March of 2020.  I think most of us understood the initial fear of the unknown virus. Was it going to make people drop dead in the streets?  Would hospitals and emergency rooms have enough beds and equipment to care for the millions of people that could require care?  Are there enough respirators? 

Then when 2 weeks stretched into 2 months, and then 4 months and now 6 months, people have started to wonder about who is making all these COVID laws.

Why is it 6 feet and not 7 feet?

Why can my parents visit us for an entire day but if they stay overnight their retirement community will lock them in their rooms for 14 days?

Why can basketball players sweat, drip and spit all over each other in a practice or game but when they aren't playing they have to sit on the bench 6 feet apart wearing a mask?

Why can their be 500 people in Walmart all cris-crossing paths, standing in lines and fondling vegetables in the grocery, but the church next door isn't allowed to have ANY service where people and singing are present?

[T]he government may not discriminate against religion in general or any particular religion in particular. It need not exempt religious institutions or practitioners from rules that are generally applicable to similarly situated institutions or citizens, but it may not impose especially onerous rules on religion that limit its free exercise.

Under the first amendment, churches hold a higher protected status than comparably sized and ventilated businesses. So, as an initial matter, it would appear unconstitutional for a state to prohibit church assemblies of more than 50 congregants, regardless of the size of the building, while allowing a casino to host up to half their usual number of gamblers, which in some cases can exceed 1,000. But Chief Justice Roberts introduced a judicial consideration that went beyond that initial consideration, namely the right of governors not to be second-guessed by judges during a pandemic emergency."

"Where those broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject to second-guessing by an 'unelected federal judiciary,' which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people. See Garcia v. San Antonino Metropolitan Transit Authority, 409 U.S. 528, 545 (1985)." — US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

"But Covid-19 is not a blank check for a state to discriminate against religious people, religions organization religious services. There are certain constitutional red lines that a state may not cross even in a crisis. Those restrictions include racial discrimination, religious discrimination, and content-based suppression of speech." — US Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

If hard cases make bad law, emergencies make even worse law. Our case books are littered with awful judicial decisions authorizing presidents and governors to violate core constitutional rights in the name of coping with crises. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's decision to intern more than 100,000 Americans of Japanese descent following the attack on Pearl Harbor was upheld by liberal justices. President Abraham Lincoln's decision to detain citizens and deny them access to the writ of habeas corpus was upheld during the Civil War. Now that that we are experiencing a pandemic crisis, if history is any guide, we can expect some bad decisions.

Consider the recent decisions of the Supreme Court to deny emergency relief to churches that have been subjected by states to restrictions that are more onerous than to casinos and other secular institutions and businesses. The churches sought emergency relief under their First Amendment right of the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court, in two 5-4 decisions, has denied that relief, with the swing vote being cast by the deeply religious and strongly conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, who joined the four liberal justices. The other four conservative justices dissented in both cases.

The first amendment's approach to religion is anything but clear or simple. It contains several relevant provisions: it prohibits "an establishment of religion." It also protects against laws "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. Finally, it guarantees "the right of the people peaceably to assemble," although that provision seems geared more to political than religious assemblies — a distinction that may be difficult to make in an age in which everything, including religion, is political.

What does seem clear from these provisions and our long, if not always successful, effort to reconcile them in judicial decisions, is that the government may not discriminate against religion in general or any particular religion in particular. It need not exempt religious institutions or practitioners from rules that are generally applicable to similarly situated institutions or citizens, but it may not impose especially onerous rules on religion that limit its free exercise.

Here;  https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16496/pandemic-casinos-churches

We know that the COVID virus can be very, very bad for a certain segment of society, mainly old and unhealthy people.  We also know it hits black and Latino old, unhealthy and obese people very hard.  But for the 99.9% of Americans who won't have any problems with this virus, it would seem that we are being prepared for something larger that may be coming down the pike.

Things like taking a bus-load of old people to Branson, MO for the Christmas Festival might never be allowed in the USA again because the activity could be deemed "Unhealthy and Unsafe" by the State.  If you disagree you may be labeled as a "grandma killer" or "unpatriotic" because you "simply don't care about the health and welfare of those people around you!"