A healthcare ID passport to enter church?

Imagine turning up to church on a Sunday morning and the verger asks you to line up with your smartphone and open up the ID passport app.   No jab - no entry.  You fumble around trying to switch on your phone while others in the porch glare at you. Oh dear,  you forgot to charge your phone. Well, there goes Holy Communion for this Sunday. The verger politely informs (but loud enough for most to pick up) that sadly it is not safe to let you in. The vicar approaches you seeing the commotion. He has that look of slight patronising concern. 

When the verger explains the clergyman looks at you if you are a vaccine refusenix. People start stepping back. The vicar puts on a mask. He says he believes your story about the phone battery. Of course he does. Perhaps you would like to watch the service via livestream he mumbles through his mask?  You think that is what he said but because your heart is racing and your head is spinning you just cannot be sure. No proof of jab - no entry.

If Tony Blair and Dominic Raab are to be believed then internal identity passports will be part of British life within a few months. An internal ID passport would give people who have been jabbed to go to shops, gyms, cinema,  perhaps even work. This contrast with a travel healthcare passport which potentially could be employed for crossing borders. (There is already something like this for countries which suffer from Yellow Fever).   

The government may not introduce an actual law for compulsory vaccine passports. They might not need to.  Their policy may be in the words of Sir Humphrey to have no policy. In other words if Tesco introduces ID passports then the government will turn a blind eye. If Pimlico Plumbers can say no jab no job without comment from the government then there is no reason why all sorts of other companies and institutions cannot introduce similar policies when it comes to using their services.

Churches are an interesting case to point on so many levels.   In the medieval law the right of sanctuary meant that individuals fearing the law or recrimination could take legal shelter in a church, even if this was last resort. Church buildings were designed with that broad sense of sanctuary, peace, and rest. This was the one place that gave hospitality par excellence.  Indeed, these holy places set the example to the rest of the community.  "And the King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’" Matthew 25.40.  

Do we want our churches to be just like any other place, or do they hold a different story for us? What does it say about our faith if we start to discriminate against this or that person coming into our buildings to pray, take shelter, or to worship? Is our religion about considered safety or generous risk? What is the more moral option AND what would Christ do?