a purely secular component of the churches that we represent won't that's what their core mission is but in addition to the internal there's the expert on as well and i want to point out a few things with regards to that when you look at  he comparisons there between the supreme court this court's decision in the in the two decisions from the same town and the nd circuit and now even the most recent six circuiting not regarding permitted in this particular situation in california both packaging and process and laundromats warehouse and grocery stores liquor stores big box retailers stores malls transportation facilit ask your complaint challenges any future order that for him it's religious worship is that correct is the argument against the state whole order any different then your area that is not based upon any empirical evidence at all in fact we've taken significant health precautions and not one episode in the many many churches that we represent outbreak has been found or noted by anyone and we have no knowledge of it so we're willing everything possible beyond what is not in any of these other venues that are allowed to operate with no restrictions or much less restriction you no your honor in fact some of them are doing services around harvest rockers during the services under threat of criminal penalties by the prosecutor of pasadena and not only him but everybody who comes to the church council if that's the case why should cheer one be a total ban when tear to allows a twenty five percent capacity or one hundred person limit why couldn't your one be let's say ten percent or twenty five people with straight masking ten feet distance in the pews between people and no singing why why why why does they have to be a total ban rather than some tighter to discuss this right i think that was the record in new york and in nevada and especially the others think tie general types of empirical data you know well before the the court about the risk of transmission and of course clearly that's the concern here with these eight hour period that are that are applied and yet the supreme court i took a very strong exception to a numerical cap imposed with out be guard to the size of the response is their obvious response is not any indoor gathering these are factors right there not a checklist so the other the other facilities if you want to use that word where a lot of people go there is a grocery store right for example of course that's critical infrastructure because people have to eat and your experts have talked about it yes but people tend to spend less time there and those facilities tend to have more refrigeration is so that is a balancing it's not a straight apples to apples comparison you know  ok but should should our analysis of the indoor worship band under cheer one which has been really the focus of this whole case be the same as under the stay at home o bill would have an opportunity to fix that given the december rd order preventing indoor worship services in the meantime then it seems to me that the balance of the hardship in the public's interest is less blueprint is what's briefed of this briefed and it if i were to decide that i think there's a constitutional infirmity in the blueprint but that we don't have a basis here to enjoin the december rd stay at home order then it seems to me getting back to your point and to the winter factors that the public's interest which is great here of course you both have very serious interests at stake here but there would not be i think i don't see why there would be a concern that there would be a huge insert surge in church attendance that i don't think there could be given the december rd quarter now that was the state would have an opportunity to fix it if we find there's a problem in the suspicious of temporary buildings temporary orders there's no indication that this is going to expire and in another week or two more likely we're talking months if including in los angeles county so here is some light on the end of the tunnel here but but here we're talking about the protection of a constitutional right which is vested in the st amendment the you've already indicated that the analysis of the indoor worship band under tear one should be the same as the analysis under the stay at home or you've already indicated that to me in my last my earlier question constitutional analytical issues are yes this matters a lot and you're seeing it flatly differently we don't have any briefing on whether the december rd quarter singled out houses of worship for harsh treatment that's my take on this if i'm missing and i think we're getting you both have very important issues and we're really trying to get this right so i appreciate your patience one of the categories sectors i guess in the blueprint that i don't see accepted in the regional stay at home order is nail salons and unless they're expected and i don't see these to these except any relevant difference again it's relevant to determining whether the state as in this is the standard for moment how it's relevant it's relevant to determine what is singling out worship for especially harsh treatment ok thank you council we've let you go over time our question is have been very vigorous and they have been very cooperative in responding to them we've allowed you to go almost five minutes over time so we have to give  thousand and there's been no expert testimony to that effect about why they need to put a complete ban on all worship no matter what they do no they just don't trust people to gather paraphrase that the reason it's not enough in this particular instance is because of the proximity people staying close in within service and the duration of time and because that and this is what i'd like your feedback on because it is a different type of gathering it's a social gathering and i believe it is dr weil that explains people go to a religious service for the purpose of being together quite different than going to a grocery store or a shopping cent matter signs of the sanctuary and no matter what churches and here and are willing to do no and that there are no evidences of outbreaks and unity of our churches have a public interest waver against them in favor of the church and expired thank you for being very very helpful to us in sorting out this rather complex constitutional matter thank you very much the case just argued will be submitted for decision and the court is