There is a great debate raging over whether restaurant owners who have defied Gov. Tom Wolf’s orders to discontinue indoor dining for three weeks should be prosecuted. There is disagreement all around, including among restaurant owners themselves and state legislators.

Gov. Tom Wolf and state Health Secretary Dr. Rachel Levine issued the order for restaurants and some other establishments, contending that they are viewed as potentially significant spreaders of COVID-19.

As you can imagine, this did not sit well with restaurant operators who had undergone a similar, but longer lasting, shutdown earlier in 2020. The timing of this one was exacerbated because it involved two major holidays when restaurants are typically busy and make some decent cash - Christmas and New Year’s. The ban was not extended beyond Jan. 4, a relief to this economically stressed industry.

According to a report by the National Restaurant Association in December, 110,000 restaurants in the United States have closed permanently since COVID-19 was detected.

Scores of restaurants across the state, including some in our five-county region, defied the order and remained open. About two dozen of them, which continued indoor operations after being ordered to stop, were cited in an injunction sought by the offices of the state Attorney General and Health Department.

The petition calls for the owners of the offending restaurants to pay punitive damages and the costs of enforcement.

At the same time, an appeal to the indoor closing order was filed, but a federal judge ruled just before Christmas in favor of the state. In his order, U.S. District Judge Christopher Conner in Harrisburg denied the petition filed by two restaurant owners and a Hershey-area restaurant trade association that alleged that the order violated their constitutional rights to equal protection.

Some of the owners who failed to comply with the state’s order gave a variety of reasons, but one of the most compelling has been survival of their business.

Other owners feel that their constitutional rights to free enterprise are being infringed upon by what they consider to be “arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory and unfair” edicts.

Others say they practice strict sanitary protocols, and if a patron feels uncomfortable coming to an establishment, he or she is not compelled to do so.

For their part, state officials cited studies by Harvard and Stanford researchers as supporting data for their decision. Some restaurant groups and legislators pushed back on this argument, contending that other studies are not as conclusive, even contradictory.

While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not address restaurants specifically, it does recommend that individuals avoid crowds, and because indoor diners are unmasked while eating and drinking for long periods of time, their exposure to others and being exposed by others is considered problematic.

Two area legislators - Sen. Lisa Boscola, D-Northampton and Lehigh, and Rep. Maureen Madden, D-Monroe, have recommended that the offending restaurant owners not be prosecuted, but Sen. Judy Schwank, D-Berks, where many of the defiant restaurant owners operate their businesses, said in a letter to Wolf that offenders should be held accountable for their rogue actions.

That position, she said, has the support of a number of restaurant owners in her county who have been following the state’s orders. It’s not fair to the law-abiders to ignore the actions of the lawless.

Melissa Bova, vice president of government affairs for the Pennsylvania Restaurant and Lodging Association, said that while her organization urged its members to comply with the state orders, she also said, “whether it’s right or wrong, when you are in survival mode, they are going to do what they need to.”

While I can sympathize with the financial plight that the order has caused on these establishments, there is a bigger picture to consider, because the way we respond to virus mitigation truly is a matter of life and death. Can we equate a financial outcome to the life of a human being who may have contracted the virus in a compromised setting?

I suspect some would argue that we can, but I can’t, and I am sure that there are many others who agree.

If we begin to take the position that we won’t follow laws and rules and regulations because of the personal consequences that they might inflict on us, where does this leave an orderly society?

If I drive 40 mph in a 25 mph zone, will I be able to make a compelling argument to the police officer who stops me that I did it safely, therefore I was entitled to do it without consequence? You know that won’t fly.

By Bruce Frassinelli | tneditor@tnonline.com