[GovernmentShrinker]

Perhaps they feel it's more important to spend their limited funds caring for the sick, elderly, and disabled, than on retrofitting their building with an expensive government-prescribed sprinkler system. Perhaps they think it's better to minimize risk of injury/death from fire by promoting sober behavior, responsibility, and careful planning (e.g. don't put the flammable tree next to an exit).

Who is the government to tell this church that its values are invalid, and must be overriden by the values of building code bureaucrats? Who is the government to decide that building codes need to be identical for all places of "public assembly", whether a church or a rowdy bar where everybody is drunk nearly all the time they're there?

End the nanny state!!! The very most the government can reasonably require is that public assembly buildings which do not conform to fire codes put a small sign at each entrance, so free citizens can decide for themselves if they want to assemble there.

[Jonx6]

"Who is the government to tell this church that its values are invalid, and must be overriden by the values of building code bureaucrats?"

In what way does the fire code tell a church that "its values are invalid"? That is a ridiculous statement.

"Who is the government to decide that building codes need to be identical for all places of "public assembly", whether a church or a rowdy bar where everybody is drunk nearly all the time they're there?"

It isn't the same for every type of public assembly. There are different types based on use and size.

BTW, these are not unconstitutional edicts handed down by Hillary.
Theses are codes adopted by local communities who wanted them. These communities are well within their right to adopt these codes and they don't need your permission to do so.