1.) I don't agree with taking such "both sides" a view of equating the two: BLM protests are about protesting police brutality, religious congregations are not. Quarantine protests are underplaying the dangers of coronavirus: people participating in BLM protests, by and large, have no misconceptions of coronavirus. Whether or not you prioritize this above or below police brutality is of course something you place on your own moral scale, but trying to equate the two like this is super disingenuous.

Additionally, what are you even going to do? Use the violence of the state to tell people not to protest against the use of violence conducted by the state?

2.) Lower income minorities are the ones who are often afraid to call the police, due to the widespread racial bias in policing across the US. Do not speak for them if they themselves have very low confidence in the police: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/09/29/the-racial-confid...

3.) It's not racist to criticize the Chinese government. It is, however, racist to misattribute the actions of the CPC to the actions of "the Chinese", which happens far too often.

4.) I don't even understand this point. You can't easily pick and choose what people are deciding to protest about: there is nobody at the top saying "we should protest about BLM and not the Chinese government." And especially don't conflate property destruction with what these protests stand for.

> 1.) I don't agree with taking such "both sides" a view of equating the two: BLM protests are about protesting police brutality, religious congregations are not

It isn't a matter of equating the perceived importance of the gatherings. It is a matter of the government not being content neutral in its actions. If the government is going to restrict public (and private!) gatherings for public health reasons, the restrictions can't be selective based on the speech content of the gatherings.

See part 2:

> Additionally, what are you even going to do? Use the violence of the state to tell people not to protest against the use of violence conducted by the state?

Obviously the answer is to not criminalize the gatherings at all.

Sadly there are many such irregularities in today’s socially acceptable right think. A lot of logic is being replaced by emotion.

> Especially when his opinions are factually unfounded and result the gross misuse of public resources.

Factually unfounded? It is pretty clear that opportunists and provacateurs have used the legitimate protests as a shield for their illegal activities.

Protection of property and safety of citizens is "gross misuse of public resources"? Do you think the people living above the stores being vandalized and lit on fire would agree with you?

> Absolutely no one was giving a free pass to looters.

I call shenanigans on this one. The mainstream press has downplayed the looting and violence very consistently conflating criticism of the illegal activities as criticism of the legitimate protests efforts. And there is a vocal minority of voices actually legitimizing the violent activities as an appropriate and necessary extension of the peaceful protests.

You're wrong on every single point. Yes, opportunists took advantage, but the right-wing media echoed by top Republicans is the protest were terroristic at their core and there was zero acknowledgement of the legitimate concerns of the vast majority of demonstrators. Looting got tons of coverage. It was plastered all over cable news and got a heavy response from local governments. The misuse of public resources I refer is the attacks on protestors who were not looting. Most egregiously in Washington DC acting on orders from the White House.