Your response was as predictably inane as I have come to expect. There was actually a large body of support, both nationally and internationally, though if you only saw the narrative as it was presented, I can forgive you for your blanket statement that they had no support.
Define "large body" here.
And I can't say I'm surprised that you think preventing disease spread is somehow subordinate to spurious claims of violation of bodily autonomy. Right to life has no meaning, then?
Yep. I'm just fine with people who would refuse to do the minimum civic duty to prevent the spread of a disease that has killed millions being ignored.
And if you are fine with the outcome, I am curious: what is the point of assembly, if you will just get inappropriately name-called and threatened by the government?
Right to assembly is not right to effective assembly. Just as the right to speech doesn't automatically mean whatever you say will be listened to.
They're welcome to try again. Their chances of success are as remote as they were before.