"We will be deposing the key health officers and county officials and requiring them to answer for their oppressive actions under oath, and requesting all documents and information supporting their arbitrary attempts to restrict our religious liberty as a church. Our church leadership remains firmly committed to the truth that Christ is the head of the Church, and we will not yield to government's infringement upon the [B]iblical command to worship and gather together... We intend to steadfastly defend this truth and obtain appropriate constitutional and legal protections and further relief from the Court."
The commitment to organically meeting together as church is only commendable and right, however the premise which seems (based upon what I have read) to be behind an argument for that practice in the midst of a gov. recognized practice, that that the state can never prevent that, is destined to fail in the courts, since it would also mean that failing to meet requirements for building and fire codes also cannot prevent such meetings.
Courts have ruled in favor of church in cases like this then the latter were subject to a double standard, but arguing that the state cannot never prevent corporate meeting in closed spaces when there is evidence such results in spread of a virus that is often deadly to a certain class of people is unlikely to be one that will prevail.
I do not know much of the specifics of the case but rather than an all-or-nothing argument, then if meetings inside ensured that spacing was followed, and esp. with the unhealthy being separated, and even better, meeting outside and have more but shorted services, then the church would have a better chance to prevail against a states all-or-nothing requirement.