Do our free speech rights allow us to disrupt church services?
Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #246 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.
Recently, anti-ICE demonstrators invaded the Cities Church of St. Paul, yelling, "Hands up, don't shoot" and "ICE out,” disrupting the Sunday service, frightening children, being streamed by former CNN host Don Lemon, all the while arguing what they did “needed to be done.” Church pastor Jonathan Parnell said, "We have asked them to leave, and they have obviously not left. This is unacceptable. This is shameful. It is shameful to interrupt a public gathering of Christians in worship."
Don Lemon responded, "There is a Constitution. There is a First Amendment of freedom of speech and freedom to assemble and protest." To which Pastor Parnell said, "We are here to worship Jesus. That is the hope of these cities. That is the hope of the world, Jesus Christ."
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the DOJ, Harmeet Dhillon, wrote on X, "A house of worship is not a public forum for your protest! It is a space protected from exactly such acts by federal criminal and civil laws! Nor does the First Amendment protect your pseudo journalism of disrupting a prayer service.”
Christian leaders across the country decried this incident, repeatedly noting there is no constitutional First Amendment right to protest during religious assemblies or in churches, some citing the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. “This 1994 federal law prohibits the use of force, threat of force, or physical obstruction that interferes with any person seeking to exercise their First Amendment right to religious freedom at a place of worship.”
There is considerable case law dating to the protests in the 1960s, detailing how peaceful protest and speech are indeed sacrosanct and protected, but this does not include obstructing the progress of others, for example, blocking people from entering pro-life or abortion clinics or blocking highways or sidewalks, it does not authorize commandeering private property or disrupting private meetings, much less religious services, nor do our First Amendment guarantees protect use of physical threat, intimidation, or violence.
Somehow, many of the so-called “mostly peaceful protests” following the George Floyd tragedy in 2020, the anti-DOGE protests in 2025, and now with the anti-ICE movement, think they have a right to aggressive, threatening, property damaging public riots.
However, “the First Amendment does not grant license to hijack private religious services. It does not permit protesters to silence others or transform religious sanctuaries into stages for political theater. Our freedom of speech is not a freedom to prevent others from speaking—or in this case, worshiping. This distinction is crucial for anyone committed to ordered liberty. A society where activists can storm churches, synagogues, or mosques to target individuals based on their employment or political views is not a free society. It’s a society descending into mob rule…When protesters believe their cause justifies any tactic—including invading houses of worship—they’re not championing justice. They’re claiming a form of moral superiority that places them above the rules that govern everyone else.”
This St. Paul church incident reminded me of an occurrence during my other life as a university president when an organized group of college students, volunteers, and hangers-on—some gay, some not—calling themselves “Soulforce,” gained funding from large-donor liberal sources and began traveling the country in what they called an “Equality Ride,” showing up, usually uninvited, on Christian college or university campuses, all in the name of what back then were called gay rights.
When I was president, they visited Cornersone University uninvited and unauthorized, coming on campus, interrupting teaching by walking into classrooms, and some attempting to take over our morning chapel on campus, an event at which I was present and in which I stepped forward to cancel chapel and dismiss students. The organization had repeatedly and kindly been informed that its tour bus stop was not welcome at Cornerstone University and that riders would not be permitted on the campus. I had simply told them, “No thank you.” Yet they came anyway. Eventually, members of the group lined the street edge of the campus in protest and when enough media were present, Soulforce sent two of its members onto campus, knowing Grand Rapids Police officers stood ready to arrest them. They got their photo op, handcuffs and all—standard operating procedure for the local police—and proclaimed their agenda.
The group argued they were only seeking dialogue, yet most riders arrived in gray Soulforce logo jackets, they sat together for a more visible impact, and they had a video camera person staged inside the chapel venue and two still cameras outside.
I was asked by the local press, “Some might say you made your point yesterday when two people were arrested. Why not just let them alone today?” I answered, “I understand the compassion or the desire to be hospitable that lies behind that view, but there’s another principle at stake here. If any organization can at any time come to our campus and involve itself uninvited in any program or event, then we don’t have control over our own programs or property. Our liberty is being violated. That’s true for you as a homeowner and its true for every corporation and organization in this town. Soulforce’s actions are ethically and legally questionable.”
One thing Soulforce did not understand, or more likely ignored, is that Cornerstone University’s campus is private property. Even public universities can bar individuals from venues if, for example, they chant obscenities at opposing teams—a trend a few years ago—because public universities are allowed to impose content-neutral, conduct-based restrictions and sanctions tied to student status and event rules.
Soulforce still exists, still promotes its agenda “to end the religious and political oppression of LGBTQI people by breaking open the ideologies of Christian Supremacy and healing our communities’ spirits from Spiritual Violence.” I don’t support their beliefs now any more than I did then, but I do support their right to freedom of speech, even protest, as long as their protests are indeed peaceful speech, lawful in behavior, and not actions limiting others.
Now, we are witnessing sometimes peaceful but often aggressive, uncontrolled, anarchistic protests qua riots, in the name of some political position. The danger lies in the “anything goes” trend. If this trend continues, it’s only logical to conclude more people will be hurt, maybe some killed.
“Conservatives have long championed law enforcement, and rightly so. Police officers, border agents, and federal law enforcement personnel stand between ordered society and chaos. They deserve our respect, adequate resources, and legal protections when acting lawfully. But supporting law enforcement does not mean granting blanket immunity from accountability. True law and order require that laws bind everyone equally—including those who enforce them.
When officers abuse their authority or use excessive force, conservatives should be the first to demand accountability, not the last to excuse it.”
I am not saying the ICE agent who shot and killed Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis acted improperly, nor do I want to rush to judgment to excuse him.
I am saying I support full transparency and investigation. The only way citizens are going to trust law enforcement—especially in the current environment—is to see for themselves that law enforcement officers followed proper protocol within the law, or if they did not, they will be held accountable. This is not a partisan matter, not a race or gender matter. It is a justice is blind matter.
To me, protestors would carry greater moral credibility if they protested specific incidents which they believe violate the constitution and the rule of law. Instead, they have backed themselves into a dead-end wherein they protest all ICE action, i.e., they are defending illegal aliens, defending criminals with long rap sheets, defending people who are a clear and present danger to the city and neighborhood in which they lodge. Protestors, or what seem to simply be agitators, risk their lives and the lives of law enforcement to scream shrilly about people they would not want living in the apartment above them.
Now, some protestors justify invading a church service.
But “churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples must be off-limits for political disruption. Full stop. This isn’t a partisan position—it’s a baseline requirement for a functioning pluralistic democracy. Religious communities across the theological and political spectrum should unite in defending this principle, regardless of their views on immigration policy…What happened at Cities Church cannot become the new normal. If we care about preserving religious freedom for future generations, we must draw a line here and now.”
Protest if you wish, but protest peacefully, lawfully, safely, and protest in a manner that does not seek to directly inhibit law enforcement officers from doing their job.
Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best.
If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. For more Christian commentary, see my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com, or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers.
And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2026
*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/ or my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.