the court doesn't even care if banning in-person services would create "irreparable harm", which is basically what it said. what the court cares about is if it's going to work or not. this is an administrative review case, not a constitutional challenge; the court needs to defer, but only to the point that it's rational.
so, does it make sense to ban drive-in churches? is that going to reduce case counts?
frankly, i actually think the drive-in thing was fairly innovative, and probably sufficient. while it's clear that religious services are one of the primary problems, and you'd have to be daft to go to a church right now if you're at all vulnerable to this, which most people that go to church regularly truly are, sitting in a parking lot is a different issue. even talking outside after is probably mostly safe.
i have no solidarity with christians. at all. but i think they would have won this if they had made the right argument.