Don Lemon, and others were arrested, per a doctored image:
For suitable background context; See:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe875iKBmrw --- That YouTube statement fleshes out time and place, of a key
church/ICE protestor speaking about the issue of the protest and it's motivating factors, in her view.
Lemon contends he was not part of any planning of the event, but had prior notice and hence reported it, as news. As contending freedom of the press, set that apart from Levy Armstrong, solely contending freedom of speech.
In the past a bill was passed in Congress, against impeding access to abortion clinics and some congress critters tacked on "Churches too."
That's the bill the "conspiracy to disrupt" prosecution of the protesters is based.
IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL TO PUT CHURCHES ABOVE ANY OTHER PLACE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, SUCH AS A RESTAURANT?
That likely will be the key question arising from the protest of the ICE pastor's being protested inside the church. Had it been outside picketing the church without impeding entry, on the sidewalk, not inside, it would have gotten less coverage and likely would have not been prosecuted - picketing peacefully outside an abortion clinic without impeding entry (churches too?) is allowed. Free speech.
Now, presume ICE pastor whats-his-name was inside a restaurant, where he dined, and many entered the restaurant and chanted and interrupted his diner and were arguably a nuisance to other diners under local law, chanting and milling about in large numbers. Nothing to make a federal case about it, local nuisance law would be at play.
So if church and state are to be separate, that fucking church was no different than a publicly open restaurant. No notice of "members only" an unlocked door, no posting of "MEMBERS ONLY - TRESPASSERS WILL BE PROSECUTED." A public facility. (Not open 24/7 but when open, open to the public in all appearances even if not so open in fact.)
But A CHURCH! Well, so what? The First Amendment gives me freedom from religion, it's nothing to me but something others do, and they're free to do so, as long as they don't force themselves onto me and don't think themselves special over having a religion I don't, be it Hindu, Christian, Judaism, Mormon, or Islam or whatever. The Native American Church with Peyote rites; Rastafarians with their herb.
Freedom of religion means there is no State religion. Nothing imposed. Nothing curtailed. But it's also freedom from religion having any special status, or rights they have but I would not have if believing in the divinity of a redwood tree. (Since tree worship is not a recognized religion - lacking critical mass, such as that numerically behind the Mormon church - which historically been persecuted as a cult when with lower numbers and headquartered in the Midwest when Joseph Smith lived).
If it goes to the Supreme Court, they gave us Hobby Lobby, a public place for shopping I would never enter to buy a thing there, but somehow special because of Jesus or whatever. Bad law. Bad Court. But a precursor suggesting the type of opinion to expect if Ms. Levy Armstrong takes her case that far and cert is granted.
And - if Levy Armstrong wins at District and Circuit level, cert will be granted, whereas if she loses it's uncertain. This bunch, cert would be granted if she wins and has the Church part of the abortion clinic protection law held Unconstitutional by lower courts.
Because of separation of church and state. In it's logical form an opinion should take. Nothing special, it was a church and not a restaurant, nuisance and trespass local law covering both equally. This SCOTUS pack, rogue as it is, enough said.
