"Your complaint would be better directed against the 10% of restaurant owners who refused to comply with the rules and ruined it for everyone else."

This begs the question:

Should you be banned from driving because a percentage of drivers on the road are speeding? Because that's what you are advocating for here.

They could have just shut down the 10% of restaurants who weren't compliant.

OR, they can be like the elementary school teacher at recess, who bans football because two kids out of the class break the rules and tackle, and now "nobody gets to play."

That's a lazy, and highly paternalistic attitude to take for a government, and the fact that you defend the policy makes me wonder if you have ever owned or started your own business. I highly doubt you have.

Regarding the judge's ruling, you sound as if you are defending the county's action of shutting down businesses without bothering to do a cost/benefit analysis of any sort. Yes, the judge in the case made that ruling, but if you read the details of the judgement (i did) he pointed out that the county didn't even seek out data, and instead justified it with indoor dining studies. Also, very notable in that case was the admission by LA County that the intention of the outdoor dining ban was to indirectly reduce spread by providing less destinations outside of the home, and therefore keeping people in their homes more.

And yes, it was "stayed by the Court of Appeals" because the County immediately appealed. The court didn't just act on its own. Mark Geragos, the main attorney in the case, has some detailed analysis on the case he discusses in a few legal oriented podcasts.

I've noticed that the people who defend these poorly informed, optically driven government oversteps the most are the people who bought into the paranoid fear of the virus the most in the beginning. The people who wipe down every box that enters their home, and wear masks outdoors in open areas with no people within 15 feet of them...... they are the biggest defenders of this stuff. The cognitive dissonance of admitting they completely overreacted, and the huge cost they incurred of not leaving their apartments for months, well, they couldn't have done that for nothing, could they? No, the science is all wrong, the people not wearing masks while riding their mountain bike in a national park are jerks, and the parents who want their kids in school just want free babysitters.... yeah, that's it.....

And let me emphasize this:

The data clearly demonstrates that California isn't doing well. The policies aren't working. And just like Christian right wingers who institute abstinence only pregnancy prevention, when the policies don't work, they blame the moral failings of the citizens. Prohibition could have worked too, if only the citizens weren't so terrible.

People are going to do drugs. They are going to have sex. They are going to drink. They are going to get abortions. They are going to socialize, and they are going to eat together. Banning the regulated businesses that provide these services, drives the demand underground, and sees the needs met by an unregulated black market.

Everyone in LA is getting their haircut. Look around, you'll see this. The salons, gyms are all open illegally, with plywood or paper blocking out the windows. My buddy owns an MMA gym near LAX, and he's been "open" since October. The California government failed in preventing the spread of the virus because they went full-on abstinence only, just like Puritans always do.