In related news, here is my home state's governor being so gracious as to allow people to practice their religion-- but only twenty five of them at a time, mind you! It's nice to see the bishops sticking their fingers in the governor's eye by indicating that the only reason they'd shut down Mass in the first place was because they'd deemed it wise, not because the governor had mandated it.
Even forgetting natural rights, how is any of this legal according to the Federal government's own charter? You only need to read so far as the very first amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The text actually points out a double-whammy of violations: back then they assumed that the State apparatus would follow its own rule regarding the creation of mandates being performed by a congress-- so not only are people being told they can't practice religion or peaceably assemble, but they are being stopped via Monarchy-styled edicts.
Of course, this charter is for the Federal government-- which is why Democrat governors are so suddenly and hilariously adopting anti-Federalist stances.