For me personally, grocery shopping is undeniably more important since I am not religious. But for others being denied access to religious services or practice may be a grave sin that is worse than having to wait in longer lines at the grocery store.
On that note, I am going to go shopping.
If California put the same restrictions on grocery stores, as it did churches they would be more consistent with US law. Otherwise, the government has to prove that the difference in restrictions is so important it outweighs the religious concerns raised by the plaintiffs. (This is a high bar to reach in the US.)
The SCOTUS is being lazy by letting CA characterize a church similarly to a commercial movie theater. That is nonsense. A person can miss a movie without risking eternal damnation, but this may not be true for some church services for some Christians.
Earnest belief has also led to self inflicted wounds, drowning, and hanging others. I don't think religion should get a pass or get preferencial treatment.
That is why I have been careful to describe protected religious practices using the term 'otherwise lawful religious practice'.
The plaintiffs clearly practice a religion. Going to church is clearly a legal religious practice. Thus, the government needs to prove that shorter lines at grocery stores are more important than longer lines or less capacity at churches. The government can't prove that because it can't interpret (or weigh) the importance of going to church.
If you've known any religious people who successfully fasted all food for over a month then you may have seen the evidence for yourself. (Even as a once religious person I found it shocking.)
The question is that right can only be temporarily, narrowly, and non-discriminately suspended under extraordinary circumstances, and 5-4 agreed that is in fact what has been done.