Weren't all gatherings banned, but due to different legal rights for protests they weren't? Framing it as an attack against religion is incredibly misleading in that case.
Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are held in the same esteem constitutionally.
There's no different legal rights. Practicing a religion is a form of speech. The same form of speech protesters were using. It was entirely political. By and large the protesters agreed with the dominant political party, and people practicing religion generally didn't. There was no constitutional basis for their restriction. Unfortunately, a case like this has to be resolved at the higher courts and we know that those work on geologic time.
