So, anon would like to opine on the SCOTUS rulings that have upset quite a few.

Namely, I would like to point out the curious and flawed choice of argument by churches before the courts.

The 1st amendment contains a right to assembly. It does not actually contain a right for you to practice your religion - it simply restricts the government from using religion as the basis for its laws - IE - a religious group can neither be uniquely advantaged or disadvantaged by a law.

This is an important distinction because the argument before the court was that the lockdown orders were a violation of first amendment rights based on them affecting the practice of religion.

Imagine, if you will, this case having struck down the lockdowns on churches, but left in place the lockdown on the general public, because it is now determined that a law's enforcement must exempt religious practice.

Imagine if honor killings in muslim communities were considered exempt from enforcement and prosecution as murder because it is part of their religious doctrine. Or how about the more dubious mormon groups who marry their daughters early and often under duress - if that was now considered exempt because the law can't conflict with religious practice.

The case before the court sought to create special exemption from the application of law for religious groups, using support for religion as a vehicle.

Consider, instead, that they could have argued on peaceful assembly and gotten the whole lockdown concept defeated, but they chose much more dubious challenges to the orders that would give them the most exclusive benefits.