What we have isn't a democracy. It's a gerontocracy that saw political gain in putting hundreds of thousands at risk while simultaneously sticking it to the religious (possibly) right. For whatever reason, mentioning this turns things inflammatory when it's the reality of the situation. You could protest shoulder to shoulder with or without a mask but congregating for church was made temporarily illegal. What kind of logic is that?
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.
(and no, I had no problem with being "forced" inside to stop people from dying - if you did, you might want to look in the mirror and consider your moral framework)
On the one hand - that would only push the problem one turtle down, to "who is testing the food testing supplies & equipment?".
OTOH - since the libertarians have a "zero out of N and counting" record of ever creating even a micro-scale functioning libertarian society...is it worth the electrons to bother refuting libertarian arguments?