Drive-in Services Upheld For Now

The exception for “life-sustaining” businesses allows law firms, laundromats, liquor stores, and gun shops to continue to operate so long as they follow social-distancing and other health-related precautions.... But the orders do not permit soul-sustaining group services of faith organizations, even if the groups adhere to all the public health guidelines required of essential services and even when they meet outdoors.

There seems to have been a few lawsuits regarding "drive-in" religious services and this appeal ruling allowing them in Kentucky, if social distancing rules are applied, for the time being is of that character.  I am somewhat open to such a move and am sympathetic to the need of such services on some level.  Religion is a basic part of the human condition, especially in these times. And, unlike a variety of things (including services inside), this seems to be a reasonable attempt to accommodate the various needs of the times.  Finally, details matter a lot here.

But, I will reaffirm my distaste at weak comparisons. On some facial level, a person might sarcastically note liquor stores are deemed "life-sustaining" while limits are put on religious gatherings. But, religion still is life-sustaining on some level.  The specific concern here are meetings and contact.  A liquor store is a notable contrast here.  Think of a typical liquor store encounter.  A few people at most will be in the store at one time, for a brief time to obtain liquor with minimal communication.  Take this summary of the drive-in concept regarding a typical service:

But then the staff of The Grove Church in Marysville, Washington was having a meeting to try and figure out what to do in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Normally, the church would have about 1,200 people gather in the sanctuary on a Sunday, but health officials were discouraging any groups over 50. There was talk of “social distancing,” requiring healthy but possibly infectious people to stay at least six feet away from each other, reducing human contact to limit the spread of the coronavirus.

The discussion at the very least shows the need to think outside the box since the normal relations here is far more troubling in this context than a liquor store or even a normal business situation.  This would be true as well when comparing the usage of these things in these times.  I had to wait outside and interact with someone through plastic while wearing a mask recently when buying some Chinese takeout.  One on one situation, for a short period.  More complicated is the supermarket.  At any given time, there might be numerous people inside, though lately there was a move to limit this.  For instance, I had to wait last night to enter Rite Aid.  But, again, limited time inside, brief engagements with people. There I can even self-check out.

I know the governor of Kentucky is a Democrat and all, but it is still Kentucky.  If he was wary of drive-in services as a type of "mass meeting" that needs for the time being be blocked, gather he has some grounds to do so.  The general concerns was addressed here, e.g., though the drive-in concept was not addressed specifically.  The Republican AG is cited in the first link in this paragraph and does the comparison with businesses thing. But, there are distinct differences here.  And, there are ways to exercise one's faith without doing this.  It is a false choice to say that the only way to do so is in person. 

As noted in that article, there was evidence of people not truly social distancing.  It simply is common sense to fear such things, especially given some of the remarks we are hearing from various sources, putting aside the cosplay protests that our disease vector-in-chief gave aid and comfort to recently.  How do we keep track of such things?  I have seen people in my own neighborhood, in the Bronx, without masks along the avenue, which is not isolated from other people. This is in violation of the current rules in place.  Are we to think that often conservative minded types are going to faithfully (ha) follow social distancing rules in an extended religious service?  One often with particularly at risk individuals?

There has been overall only limited strict application of the rules (NY and CA being two places cited) overall here in the first place.  Again, details matter and I would be interested in reading and listening to an extended discussion of the facts here.  The general concept of people in their cars while a sort of drive-in movie concept takes place or perhaps more like a concert (with a person on a stage) as suggested by a photo here on some level seems workable.  But, how does it work?  What happens when numerous people travel and come together, with people not merely staying in cars, talking and praying [note the oral vectors of the virus) again with elderly parishioners involved?

Such details would be useful for me to get a full accounting of the situation. It is fine to speak in hypothetical but that is not how life works. And, it is not like these things have not occurred.  There should be some evidence on the subject.  And, I see the lower court was less sympathetic to the claims, for reasons akin to what was said above.  For instance, the "these things aren't the same" reality is well addressed:

Plaintiffs seek to compare in-person attendance at church services with presence at a liquor store or “supercenter store[].” The latter, however, is a singular and transitory experience: individuals enter the store at various times to purchase various items; they move around the store individually—subject to strict social-distancing guidelines...—and they leave when they have achieved their purpose. Plaintiffs’ desired church service, in contrast, is by design a communal experience, one for which a large group of individuals come together at the same time in the same place for the same purpose.

Given the extra protections pursuant to state and federal RFRAs, who is to know what the "best" legal argument is on some level.  As seen with the contraceptive mandate, there is also some tendency to be selective in practice.  (The ridiculous amount of effort being made even when all that is required is filling out form is compared to basic denial of coverage for abortion services, even when many religions deem them appropriate comes to mind here. An evenhanded respect for religious liberty is not shown, putting aside the extreme arguments would make them simply impractical.)

But, generally speaking, it very well seems appropriate to block mass gatherings.  Not religion per se.  And, as noted by the judge there, the general rule is being consistently applied. It is one side here that is asking for special rules, which at times might be warranted, but let us admit what the request is all the same.  Anyways, again, when these matters are covered in the press, a full accounting should be made, and the article with photos is an example that helps a lot to understand what is involved.

Such coverage would be a lot more useful to me than some of the stuff that dominates the news these days. I'm left wanting oftentimes and others aren't going to do the searches that I do to get a fuller feel of the situation.  Providing clarity would be a better use of limited space and television news time. OTOH, you would think there would be enough time here given 24/7 news coverage on certain channels, often having different shows cover the same material, all somewhat lacking.

===

Of some interest here would be the data on risk, putting aside that there was one infamous case abroad where a religious service was the source of a mass infestation.  I have the "luck" of being in NYC where the death toll is over 10k.  The death toll is not divided by zip code but the data here on positive tests is suggestive.  I looked at the three zip codes of members of my immediate family, including myself, the numbers as of 4/28.

By the data, there were 2580 positives in the 10469 zip code.  1984 in the 10462 zip code. 1594 in the 10463 zip code.  This is just a rough sense of things, but interesting.  It might not be surprising that the first zip code generally overlaps with the neighborhoods of a public middle and high school.  The person I know who was infected (better now) is also a school teacher though the timing there is unclear with school closing.

Perhaps, when people talk about religious liberty and so forth -- the cries here not just cosplay morons protesting outside of government buildings and so forth -- we should remember the humans reflected by this data.