According to the article, the original prohibitions were:
(A):
"...prohibits religious leaders from singing in online worship services unless they are singing in their homes by themselves or with their families."
(B):
“'… no singing or use of wind instruments, harmonicas or other instruments that could spread C****-** through projected droplets shall be permitted unless the recording of the event is done at one’s residence.'
"The order applies to churches, temples, concert halls, auditoriums and playhouses."
I would agree that (A), and possibly (B), if exactly as reported in the article, is perhaps poorly worded, and thereby technically it might be unreasonable; but it is not outrageously so, if one considers the (obvious) intention behind it:
The intention (which I think is clear enough) is to avoid situations where t***smissions of the v***s could happen. If you read them with that in mind, they are actually quite reasonable though perhaps poorly worded (if exactly as quoted in the article).
The article then goes on to mischaracterize the situation:
(C):
"...prohibited from singing".
This (C) is not at all the same as (A) or (B)! People can sing all they want as long as they're at home, or six feet away from anybody in the "churches, temples, concert halls, auditoriums and playhouses", _and_ do not share instruments that could carry the v***s from one person to another.
(D):
(other topics in the article, getting further and further from the original prohibitions, but falsely implying they are related to them)
Finally, the idea that these people, who are obviously trying to limit the spread of the v***s, "h**e God" is foolish. They are continuing their church service practices as well as they can while, at the same time, being responsible about not making people sick or dead.
I cannot be sure what your idea of "God" is, but my idea of God is that he'd like us to behave responsibly toward our fellow-man.
I've attended two kinds of online church services recently. In one, the people in the church building were maintaining a distance of at least six feet apart from each other. In the other, the people in the church building were much closer together (which happened to be particularly close and particularly noticeable when they were playing music together -- obviously neglecting to do "social distancing" (i.e., physical distancing).
The article is misleading. God, as I suppose him to be, would disapprove of that article.
I notice the article includes the phrase "As Fox News reports, ...". Fox "News" and lifenews.com are misleading you and thereby wasting your time and energy, unless you simply _like_ to claim that "left/Democrats h**e GOD". In that case they are giving you false fuel for your false ideas about "left", "Democrats", and "GOD". Get a clue from those "liberals" and "Democrats" in Mendocino County; _they_ aren't making false claims; they're trying to protect their fellow-man from sickness and death, _and_ they are conducting their church services as well as they can in the circumstances.
Sorry if I've spoiled your (and Fox's and lifenews's) fun, but really, it's not nice to say those people "h**e God". And it's not true either. It's misinformation: slurring a whole class of people, when all they're doing is trying to behave responsibly.