IF the matter had gone to court, I believe the application of such a law to churches should have been thrown out, on the ground that:

1) To require a church to obtain a license is establishment of religion (there are plenty of precedents from colonial law before the First Amendment, when Great Awakening preachers were arrested for preaching without a license).

2) To prohibit a minister (or priest) from conducting divine service, or a church from meeting for divine service, because they lack a government license, is a prohibition on the free exercise of religion.

There is precedent from the 19th century of churches being limited by law to the amount of property a local church may own — just enough for a house of worship, not enough to be a cover for a business, or a dominant force in the community in any economic or secular sense.

The federal government does not tax church property. Arguably, voluntary donations are not income, and therefore not subject to tax at all. Local governments might impose a property tax, there is no constitutional guarantee that church property must be tax-exempt, but that again is a local matter, not a federal matter.

That said, the next time a bishop of any church threatens a church member with excommunication over the manner in which they exercise a secret ballot, or conduct a public office with which the voters have entrusted them, that bishop should be prosecuted in the same manner as anyone else who exercises blackmail or coercion upon any other voter or public official. If our government allocated seats in congress to members of each church, then each church could issue instructions to its representatives, and replace them at will. But our government doesn’t work like that. Elected representatives represent their district, not their church.