What If It Was a Mosque? Or a Synagogue?
You already know the answer. And that’s the problem!
They Crossed the Line at Church. The Law Needs to Cross It Back.
There are lines in this country you do not cross.
You do not storm a house of worship.
You do not scream political slogans at families praying with their kids.
You do not turn Sunday service into your personal protest theater.
And if you do.
You face consequences.
Real ones.
Under the law.
What happened at Cities Church was not speech. It was not protest. It was intimidation. It was disruption. It was a deliberate intrusion into a protected space with the intent to coerce and shame people for who they are and how they worship.
Call it whatever buzzword makes you feel virtuous.
The Constitution calls it interference with the free exercise of religion.
And that matters.
A lot.
This was not a crowd accidentally wandering in. It was organized. It was timed. It was filmed. It was loud on purpose. Adults yelled. Children cried. The service stopped. That alone tells you everything you need to know.
If this had happened in a mosque or a synagogue, the country would be on fire by nightfall. News alerts. Emergency hearings. Endless panels. And you know it.
So spare me the selective outrage.
Let’s get something straight.
The First Amendment protects speech.
It does not protect trespass.
It does not protect intimidation.
It does not protect barging into private religious services to shut them down.
A church is not a public square.
It is not a town hall.
It is not your stage.
The Supreme Court has been clear for decades that protest loses its protection when it materially interferes with the rights of others. Worship is a right. Peaceful assembly is a right. Freedom from coercion is a right.
You do not get to trample one constitutional right to cosplay another.
What makes this worse is the lazy moral inversion that followed. The instant spin. The shrugging excuses. The familiar chorus telling Christians to just live with it.
That mindset is how rights erode. Slowly. Selectively. Always aimed at the same targets.
Federal law already covers this. Intentionally interfering with religious worship is not ambiguous. It is not novel. It is not controversial. The statutes exist for a reason.
When the Department of Justice talks about enforcing those laws, that should not be treated as a threat. It should be treated as a baseline.
And credit where it is due. When officials say houses of worship are not protest venues and that intimidation will be prosecuted, that is not authoritarian. That is constitutional hygiene.
The same applies to political leaders who try to wave this off as just part of living in a free society. No. Living in a free society does not mean surrendering your sanctuary to the loudest mob. (You hear that Frey and Walz)
Freedom of expression does not include the freedom to invade.
This incident also exposes something deeper and uglier. A growing belief among certain activists that traditional institutions deserve no protection. Churches. Families. Civic spaces. Anything viewed as unfashionable is treated as fair game.
That is not progress.
That is coercion with a smiley face sticker slapped on it.
And before anyone tries to flip the script, here is the test. Reverse the roles. Same behavior. Different congregation. Would you defend it then. Or would you demand arrests before the doors even closed.
Exactly.
Here is the position that should unite anyone who still cares about the Constitution.
Protest peacefully.
Demonstrate lawfully.
Argue loudly.
But if you storm a church to shut down worship, you should be charged. If the law was violated, you should be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowed. Not to make an example. Not to score points. But to reaffirm that rights actually mean something.
Because once churches become battlegrounds, nothing is sacred. Literally.
This is not about ideology. It is about boundaries. It is about order. It is about whether the rule of law still applies when the targets are unfashionable.
Enforce the law.
Protect worship.
Draw the line.
Or don’t be surprised when the next line disappears too.



"The Supreme Court has been clear for decades that protest loses its protection when it materially interferes with the rights of others." Yet we've let them get by with so much for so long: obstructing public roads while people try to get to work, or hospital; harassing businesses; impairing access to institutions of all kinds, including places of worship, intimidation of students and the public, with no consequence. Jail, fines, deportation, force and legal consequences. They don't understand any other language.
If those protestors tried that in a mosque, they would all likely be dead by now. And no one would dare arrest the Muslims who shot them.