Quote (bogie160 @ Jul 27 2020 08:09pm)
Of course it's a loss of right to assembly.
The right to believe what you want has not been compromised, but neither has the right to believe that police are pigs, nor the right to vote to that effect.
It's not a persuasive argument. The crux is that "political" rights supersede "religious" rights, and that's fundamentally a matter of opinion. If there's a Court case that authoritatively distinguishes between the two, point me to it.
I was on my phone, so I'll expand now.
Limiting a church service to 25% of its maximum normal capacity is a limitation of the freedom to assemble, but doing that requires clearing a lower bar of public interest for more drastic action, like totally eliminating places of worship all together. The right to hold full-occupancy services requires a lesser interest than does totally eliminating gatherings of all kinds.
So the government has a much higher bar to clear to eliminate the right to protest, since it would require total elimination of that form of speech over all issues, than it does to only limit occupancy at routine church services. In one case you've fundamentally eliminated a method of redress against the government in all forms, and in the other you've eliminated one venue while still being able to offer virtual services and limited occupancy services.
Hope that clears my position up a bit.