religious and religious activity both internally as well externally internally the churches are permitted to engage with i'm limited numerical numbers form here is kinds of non religious activity but is that as it becomes a going head yet your honor we're requesting at least a similar treatment to similar activity but one of the things that we have here both internally and externally is clearly on their face and as a owner treatment for example in the internal operation of the churches they can engage in non religious activity with no numerical restrictions but with social distancing and the other will protocols but as soon as i think it would be very helpful if we had an idea specifically of what it is you're asking for us if you're just asking for an injunction in general that that really doesn't help us very much for example are you asking us to  allow in person religious services in all of california and without restriction or something more tailored we're asking for the end person  restrictions to be no greater than others are related activity the complaint clearly indicates that the harbor structure engages in a lot of hygenic practices sanitizing mass social distancing and even encourages people to stay at home that may have predisposed health conditions but that is not even possible with the religious activity in those and mask and other kinds or requirements that they are certainly willing to do for religious services but they're not even allowed to do that for the non religious services they are they have no limitation other than those health c guidelines and so that's where you have counseling i'm sorry to pursue this but we need some help on what specific activity or could category comparison do you believe shows that the state has treated religious services less favorably than comparable secular activities and i assume who're you're talking about the level of covert exposure risk that's correct your honor and with that i activities in the same church that are non religious but have no numerical or percent limitations other than the c d c guidelines and that is feeding a show theory and providing  hope center which it does provide these kinds of activities within the church and the only restriction they have are the c d c guidelines ok but if they switch to a religious service the other percentage and restrictions come in external and by the way that comes under critical infrastructure where in these shelters counseling social services necessities of life that comes under critical infrastructure and that has been no change between the beginning and  let me begin with museums the museums hundreds of years two through four have a twenty five percent a fifty percent and no restriction on pretty here for by comparison for example under here to the churches have a twenty five percent but no grade of in one hundred people and when you get to your three hundred and fifty percent but no greater than two hundred using ems don't have that numerical limit or gyms and fitness centers under tears two through three have a ten percent twenty five percent and a fifty percent limit with again no numerical  percent but no numerical limit laundromats where people gather are ending critical infrastructure here is one through four no restrictions malls and destination centers and swap meets have to through fo fifty percent none to none now if you look at harvard drop for example it has one thousand two hundred and fifty people and if you are even to do the low number when it gets to tear two for gyms here too and have ten percent for example or the other here three here twenty five percent limitation with no numerical limit but yet if you did twenty five percent for the churches they would be able to have only three hundred and twelve no matter what si and then for fifty percent of the harvest run just as that in the example six hundred and twenty five people but when you get to the gems fifty percent interior for no numerical lemmas just depends upon the building size then you have the same thing with the card rooms in the satellite way between fifty percent no half other than the size of the building you have when we get to fifty percent more that we have a tw people are congregating for periods of time museums family entertainment and card rooms being around the same card wagering laundromats the malls and the destination centers and the swap meet they're all gathering together has so the risk there is just as great or greater than the risk at a church that has a socially dissidence meeting and we're already shorter periods of time in fact if you look at the all of the guidance of every one of the guidelines that are listed in the exhibits to the joint statement they all say the same thing and that is there that  e that there are they have no data currently available that shows the level of risk every single one of the guidance is have them and then when you look at the guidance for the church didn't have that as well same thing but it limits the building capacity to twenty five percent or one hundred attendees yet that same one hundred number is not imposed on these other places where there's congregate moreover when we filed the lawsuit the schools were shut down but now under the blueprint the schools can reopen and based upon the exhibits that again here with regards to schools it says california public schools traditional and charter private schools including nonpublic nonsectarian school districts and county offices quote will determine the most appropriate instructional model and so they are to hello different health guidelines but there's no numerical limitation and yet that poses just as much if not greater because a risk because there are very much longer in a classroom rather than a one thousand two hundred and fifty seat sanctuary as just one example so those risk again in my view certainly i would present greater because for example in the schools the exposure is much longer than you would have and i worship service that socially distance you have both an internal discrimination as i mentioned earlier and you have what has become more exacerbated in clear with the blueprint you have a clear discrimination on the face a for our joint complaint joint statement of the discrimination with respect to these external operations where there are people that congregate and gather for longer periods of time and with that we don't even need to go to the argument although i think it's relevant to shopping centers and big box centers where employees can gather for eight hours a day and five days a week yet they don't have those numerical restrictions like we have here where we have a twenty risk what is your response to that well i'm sure that that is certainly the argument but on the other hand when you compare the activity together and the length of exposure both internal that the church is going to do and external when you compare it to similar other congregant kind of activity that really has undercut well they may say that and i'm not going to doubt that that is i read a reason why they want to do with different restrictions on different situations but they have missed the target and under other least restrictive means they failed miserably and in fact instead of helping the situation they've exacerbated the situation with the current blooper because literally on the face of them when you go through the different tiers as i pointed out there is facial discrimination and that is directly not and if it's religious it has one set of restrictions very little internally and less restrictions than similar congregant kind of activity expert on and so it didn't help anything  frankly it hurt and frankly when you can have schools which weren't allowed at the time that we often complain about are allowed now but even back then by the way the exhibits j k knell of the complaint which exhibit c the joint statement statement regarding schools schools can clearly be open and it's not a state mandate it's up to the individual local bodies the term in that the no numerical limitation so for example if  worship either their baby had the most of the state or alternatively they're restricted to a top level numerical number you want to write tell her i noticed that you now just below four minutes you mentioned that you wanted to reserve so i leave it up to you i'll reserve for the rest of my time on a very well very well we will hear from the  comparisons simply don't set in other words the risk of exposure in one setting is not equivalent to what it is in a church setting and i think  but we're dealing with the st amendment and strict scrutiny applies and even on a rational basis you still have to persuade us that the counsel as i understand it and i hope i'm not mistaken on this but as i understand it food processing meat packing in a warehouse operation are less restricted than churches and we know how high risk happens inside a church service not to talk about what happens inside a church service but rather to talk about the way there is virus transmits in indoor gatherings like a questions my understanding is that one of the comparatives that the parents are asking us to look to as of the treatment of political rallies little protestors and under the current guidelines and your help the parties of filing that we got today my understanding now is that indoor political protests are treated identical to indoor worship services that's pursuant to the dropdown menu and footnote by the your brief today there's a question to answer me i little double my understanding is that secular and non secular groups are not allowed either way to engage in singing and chanting is that right i understand clearly that come congregations may not but i just want to make sure that i'm understanding correctly that other types of groups secular groups are not allowed to engage in singing and chanting what is comparable secular activity opposing counsel mention