Does the Colorado Privacy Act apply to churches with memberships (ex: Jehovah’s Witnesses)? Suppose a person living in Colorado is a registered member of a church. In this church, certain “blessings” are considered contingent on your membership. Membership is recorded on a digital system. This church also considers donations to it a commandment. It also has over 100,000 members. Suppose this person wanted to officially leave the church and request that this membership data be deleted. Is the church in question obligated under the Colorado Privacy Act to comply with said request?
Probably not. The Act applies to: (1) EXCEPT AS SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (2) OF THIS SECTION, THIS PART 13 APPLIES TO A CONTROLLER THAT: (a) CONDUCTS BUSINESS IN COLORADO OR PRODUCES OR DELIVERS COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS OR SERVICES THAT ARE INTENTIONALLY TARGETED TO RESIDENTS OF COLORADO; AND (b) SATISFIES ONE OR BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING THRESHOLDS: (I) CONTROLS OR PROCESSES THE PERSONAL DATA OF ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND CONSUMERS OR MORE DURING A CALENDAR YEAR; OR (II) DERIVES REVENUE OR RECEIVES A DISCOUNT ON THE PRICE OF GOODS OR SERVICES FROM THE SALE OF PERSONAL DATA AND PROCESSES OR CONTROLS THE PERSONAL DATA OF TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND CONSUMERS OR MORE. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-1304(1). The Rules contain the following related definition: “Commercial product or service” as referred to in C.R.S. § 6-1-1304(1)(a) means a product or service bought, sold, leased, joined, provided, subscribed to, or delivered in exchange for monetary or other valuable consideration in the course of a Controller’s business, vocation, or occupation. There is no case law on point, but generally speaking a house of worship or a church is not considered a business, so it is probably not within the scope of the Act.
I presume you are addressing the various wiretapping laws. In all of those channels, one would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, in contrast to using CB radio or a megaphone. However the context of using the instrument affects that expectation, for example if your phone is on speaker you do not have a reasonable expectation that those around you cannot hear your conversation, when there are others around you. Also, there is no expectation of privacy surrounding employers monitoring employee emails for valid business purposes – but the federal government can't intercept your emails (without a warrant) just because you are using business email. The expectation of privacy is really about the surrounding circumstance, not the instrument you use.
You must get opt-in affirmative consent to process personal data, including tracking people's use of your site or providing targeted advertising. The banner on StackExchange is likely in violation of the GDPR. Do not copy it. It does not have an explicit opt-in, only an opt out which is onerous (leave the site, then manually go in and delete any cookies they set, which may be hard to identify if they are from 3rd parties). The sites you mention that have a gateway are a more correct implementation. Consent must be acquired before processing of data begins, and it must be explicit.
Let's put to bed the myth of privacy that is at the heart of your question: in R v Sotheren (2001) NSWSC 204 Justice Dowd said “A person, in our society, does not have a right not to be photographed" So they can ask you to stop; its bad manners if you don't but it is not illegal. If they are the controller of the property then they can stop you filming from their property but they cannot stop you filming into their property from outside (either public land or land where you do have permission). See How do laws affect photography of non-humans in public when people may be in the frame?
In many countries (for instance, the US), churches and mosques are private property. In general, the owner of private property can throw anyone off their property; claiming you're doing an extensive period of praying doesn't matter, because they are under no obligation to let people stay as long as needed to pray (they can kick someone off the property for just about any reason). If there's a contract in play things are different, but contracts aren't in play in this situation. That said, nothing stops the church or mosque from letting the homeless stay there; this is actually not that uncommon (charity being a fairly common religious virtue).
The Canadian law governing interception of communication (wiretapping and recording) is explained here. Canada is a one-party country, so as long as one party (you, for example) consent, this would not be a violation of that statute. That source also believes (not unreasonably) that is would not constitute the tort of invasion of privacy since under the act The nature and degree of privacy to which a person is entitled … is that which is reasonable in the circumstances, giving due regard to the lawful interests of others (bearing in mind that is it allowed w.r.t. Section 184(1) of the Criminal Code: that is, it is reasonable to do so).
Let's put to bed the myth of privacy that is at the heart of your question: in R v Sotheren (2001) NSWSC 204 Justice Dowd said “A person, in our society, does not have a right not to be photographed.” In general, you can take photos of people; statues have even less privacy rights. There are limitations mainly related to voyeurism and commercial use, which are discussed at http://www.4020.net.
None. The federal government is allowed to prohibit coffee drinking under its power to regulate interstate commerce. Prohibition would not have required a constitutional amendment under modern constitutional jurisprudence either. By analogy, this would be no different (constitutionally) than a law prohibiting putting lithium in sodas (something that used to be done in 7 Up) or putting cocaine in sodas (something that used to be done in Coca-Cola). Conceivably, the law might have to allow a religious exemption in certain circumstances under the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause, but while many faiths prohibit drinking coffee (most notably, offshoots of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), none of which I am aware require it as a matter of religious doctrine sincerely espoused.