At my age, anything is possible.
My post was not in support or opposed to not allowing people to congregate in churches.
My post was not arguing for or against the constitutionality of executive or legislative actions prohibiting church services.
My post was pointing out the nuance in constitutional law and the rights involved.
While polygamy is definitely an interesting case it is simply not an applicable analogy. And even if there are parallels it definitely is not a self evident trump card.
As constitutional rights are important, so too is protecting the health and safety. We can no more dismiss constitutional challenges than we can dismiss concerns over public health and safety.
Comparing polygamy, shooting in public, and "dangerous speech," (though this last bit is interesting because of the case to which it alludes), are bad analogies because they ignore most of the facts on which something like this turns.
Some interesting questions:
Is there a limit to what the government can do to protect the health and safety?
Is it reasonable that different people will come to different conclusions regarding this line?