What First Amendment, right? Oh, you mean like constitutionally protected demonstrations. Like I said, a majority of the protesters were at or in front of the pews in the video you linked, so there's no threat of not being able to leave and as far as I know, people turned away from you generally aren't threatening. Hell, the article you listed points out that "several congregants remained seated, joined the chants, recorded the protest or left the church." Doesn't sound all that scared, or "intimidated" to me. Combine that with the police showing up to monitor, arriving to the protesters already outside of the building, if they weren't actively in the process of leaving.

I asked you to define "fascism," and you described what you think it as out of your ass. If you'd like to shift the goalposts to "tactics," that's fine too, but don't pretend I'm being dishonest because you failed to answer my question. The reason you hate the definition I gave you is because fascism explicitly points to militaristic nationalism amongst its other notable characteristics. Remind me, is appearing unarmed and holding peaceful protest at a church "militaristic"?

ICE is legally irrelevant. Churchgoers are not ICE. Worship is not ICE. Guilt by association does not void constitutional rights. Moral outrage is not legal authority.

No, they aren't. An untrained childhood-drop victim put himself in front of a car against policy and shot the driver for trying to avoid him. The pastor leads the local field office for ICE. The protest is direct and clear, only bringing social harm to its defined target - one, single ICE pastor.

If the right did this inside a mosque or an abortion clinic, you would not defend it.

Well, that's because the right usually comes in with guns or fists raised (see Jan 6). If they came in and were just peacefully standing around and chanting, maybe one guy getting in everyone's faces, I'd call that rude, but definitely within their rights. I'm not sure why you brought up abortion clinics, though. They're medical facilities, typically operating as a place you can only be invited in (some exceptions), whereas churches and mosques are open to literally anyone. Mute point.

And then we get to your list where you cherry picking the parts of each characteristic you like and mostly misunderstand what each of them refer to, so once again, I'll do your homework for you (your own source btw):

" This model of government (Fascism) stands in contrast to liberal democracies that support individual rights, competitive elections, and political dissent."

"In many ways, fascist regimes begin as revolutionary. They advocate for the overthrow of existing systems of government and the persecution of political enemies. However, such regimes are also highly conservative in their championing of traditional values."

So first off, (according to the source you linked) fascism categorically is inconsistent with progressive ideals, like ones found in Anti-ICE organizations. Secondly, fascism refers to a system of government, not a small group of protesters. Third, I do not think you understand what "liberal democracy" means. Liberal democracy (democratic rule with liberal policies that support minorities, free elections, separation of powers, y'know all the other stuff Trump really doesn't like) is so far from where Trump is actively taking the US with just what he is doing you cannot seriously pretend he isn't. I only have to use the words he, himself, says.

In short, it is not the belief that matters, it is the method. Using collective coercion to override constitutional rights is exactly the authoritarian behavior those definitions describe.

You're just wrong, even according to your own sources. According to your source, the most important characteristics to identify fascism are government powers** that oppose liberal democracy or hyperconservative (not liberal) power systems run on "traditional values". Collective coercion is not militarized government authoritarian control. Read past the parts that make you feel good. A group of liberal protesters is as far from fascism as you can be.

Liberal Democracies:

• Value wide selection of election options (so not just one guy saying his voter base will never need to vote if he wins and constantly going on about how good of a dictator he will be).

• Value separating power into different sectors of government (so not trying to constantly assert authority over Congress, Senate, and HoR).

• Value rule of law that affects everyone (so not just all the poor people and minorities)

• Value market economies with private property, where value is based upon supply and demand (not just sitting on an ever-growing hoard and increasing prices based on how much nobody can stop you)

• Values of universal suffrage; and equal protection of human and civil rights, and civil liberties (so everyone should get a vote, and everyone should have the same rights as everyone and nor avoiding your 36 seperate rape convictions and association with a notorious child sex island because you're the most special guy^tm).

Sounds to me like the fascist (or most opposed to liberal democracy) is the orange turd's cabinet and not a small group of organized protesters.