In this interview, a host (Speaker A) talks with a legal representative from the Alliance Defending Freedom (Speaker B) about the uneven application of COVID‑19 restrictions across the United States. The discussion highlights how several states allow large secular venues—such as casinos, bars, and nail salons—to operate at near‑full capacity while limiting or prohibiting church gatherings, often classifying worship as “non‑essential.” Speaker B explains the constitutional concerns, arguing that the government’s ad‑hoc essential‑non‑essential categorization infringes on the First Amendment. The conversation details ADF’s legal response: filing demand letters and lawsuits in more than fifteen cases, with notable victories in Oregon (capacity limits lifted), Kansas (court ordered churches to reopen), and Mississippi. The interview also touches on why many clergy have not publicly rebelled, attributing it to a tradition of deference to authority and a hope that legal challenges will restore religious freedoms. Overall, the piece underscores the tension between public‑health policies and religious liberty, and showcases ADF’s litigation strategy to achieve neutral treatment for churches.
Chapters
Hello, David.
How are you? Good to be on.
I'm glad you feel that way. You ever go on a show that you were not glad to be on?
I have been on a couple of those, yeah.
Oh, okay, fine, fair enough. What is the current state of allowance for church attendance?
You know, it's remarkable in different areas of the country. You have certain states who are abiding by the Constitution and deciding on a neutral basis, if we're letting people to congregate, whether they're secular or religious, we'll do it in an even-handed fashion. But there are several states like Nevada that have chosen to treat churches and religious organizations worse. So you can go to a casino with hundreds and thousands of your— hundreds or thousands of your best friends, but you can't go to church with 50 other people.
How do they answer that question?
Yeah, I mean, basically there's a couple problems. So people are familiar with these executive orders all over the country. They start by deciding on an ad hoc basis what's essential and what's not essential. And rather than putting church and spiritual things and worship in the essential category, they put it in the non-essential category. And so then they justify it by it's not a necessity for people. And I think that's something the government shouldn't be doing.
So in effect, at least in California, I would imagine, churches are on a par with nail salons.
Sometimes. Sometimes nail salons are treated better than churches, and that's another thing that's remarkable. If you look at the way they categorize different types of uses, it seems like churches are always on the bottom end of the list, and so they'll reopen, as people know they've done in phases, well, they'll decide that, for example, For example, we've had several cases where they open bars before they open churches, or nail salons, or as I mentioned, casinos, or things like that. And so the way— I'm not sure how they get to the conclusion about what's necessary or not, but they're certainly putting religious worship—
All right, so I'm going to ask you an uncomfortable question. Why don't more clergy rebel?
Yeah, and I think the reason is, is that, you know, we're taught to follow what our leaders say. The problem is, is when you go too far, and not only do you violate, you know, what churches may consider to be God's rights and commands, but you violate our own, like the Constitution being one. And so, you know, churches are being as patient as they could be. They've been waiting months now. But more and more you're seeing churches start to say, look, you know, we are commanded to worship together. We've been doing this for months now. You're letting people go out in throngs to protest and to go do other things which are also protected by the Constitution. but you shouldn't be picking and choosing winners and losers when it comes to the First Amendment.
So have you— has the ATF gone to court on this matter?
We have. We've gone to court in many, many cases. We've filed and/or sent demand letters in over 15 cases already. We have them pending in Nevada. We just won one in Oregon. We won in Kansas, Mississippi. So we've been filing cases for the last several months because it seems used to be the only way to get the attention of some of the government officials.
When you say you won in Oregon, what does that mean?
Well, what that means is, is that we filed a lawsuit there because churches were limited to 25 people, but yet you can go to a restaurant with no capacity limit, or a gym, or a workout class, or whatever, whatever have you. And so we filed a lawsuit on behalf of a small church that said, look, we want to meet with more than 25 people. We filed the lawsuit, and then in response, the state turned around and amended their restrictions and allowed churches to meet on the same basis as others. So we've also had court victories where the court issued an opinion saying, like the state of Kansas, it's unconstitutional the way you're limiting churches, and actually ordering the state to open churches back up. So we've had many different kinds.
All right, I want to, want to ask a couple of more questions. ADF, I, I ask you to help them, by the way.
