It's a pretty weak argument that religious groups were more heavily restricted in numbers than grocery stores and therefore the religious groups were singled out or discriminated against. As though these are similar situations. First off, food is essential for survival.
Nice fiction
You might want to use your internet connection to research the details of this case. Just a suggestion.
You'd think it would be hard to be wrong all the time. But some just have a knack*.
Sotomayor vigorously disputed the contention that the religious groups were being unfairly discriminated against, arguing that comparisons between religious services and liquor or big-box stores were overly facile because the virus-related health risks posed by what people do in those places are starkly different.
“Unlike religious services … bike repair shops and liquor stores generally do not feature customers gathering inside to sing and speak together for an hour or more at a time,” she wrote. “Justices of this Court play a deadly game in second guessing the expert judgment of health officials about the environments in which a contagious virus, now infecting a million Americans each week, spreads most easily.”
Gee that sounds familiar.
One prong of the right-wing pro-religious argument was that religious groups were being discriminated against compared to secular businesses; the other line was that the restrictions impinged religion and were not narrowly tailored enough to limit that.
The discrimination argument was very weak and poorly reasoned.
* I have a neighbor I call The Woman Who Is Wrong About Everything.
The funny thing is that she's more pleasant than the actual stupid neighbors who don't want any plants or cats in our garden -- preferring cement and laundry drying.
So the Woman Who is Wrong About Everything has recruited me as an informal ally, and when she tells me nonsense often couched as advice to follow, I usually just nod and say that's interesting.
Poll
5 (45.5%)