Good summary here:
As concerned as I am about creeping anti-secularism in the USA, I am not as concerned by this case as many other secularists seem to be. First of all, it is not a final decision but merely a stay preventing enforcement of the law while appeals continue to be heard at the lower level.
Also, the reasoning of the decision seems to be reasonably sound: If places of worship are being subject to more stringent restrictions than comparable secular businesses, then the Establishment Clause may well be violated.
This is not to say that this court will not make future decisions that inappropriately favor religious freedom over other civil rights (e.g. regarding laws preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation). But I don’t think this particular case is the one that confirms that fear. Not yet.
Anyone else have any thoughts? Particularly @Puck_Mendelssohn or other lawyers we might have among us?