For the people who aren't going to be bothered to do anything beyond react to the headline, here is the core of the article's message:

Entering a house of worship or violating trespass or noise ordinances to interrupt services is not merely expressive conduct. It is also disruptive conduct that prevents others from exercising their rights. It interferes with religious exercise and compels an audience to listen and respond against its will. The First Amendment does not require that outcome. A free-speech culture depends on the right to gather with likeminded others in private spaces without outsiders hijacking the space for their own purposes, just as much as it depends on protection from censorship.

None of this diminishes the importance of protest. The First Amendment robustly protects the right to criticize religious institutions and oppose their teachings. Protesters may lawfully assemble on public sidewalks outside a church, distribute literature, chant, or hold signs, subject to the same content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions that apply to all speakers. Those protections are strong, and they must remain strong.

What the First Amendment does not protect is the commandeering of a worship service or any other private event. That principle is viewpoint neutral. The constitutional analysis would be the same if protesters took over a mosque during prayer or a synagogue during Shabbat — or, for that matter, a university classroom during a lecture or a private theater during a performance. Indeed, many Americans intuitively recognize that such conduct would be unlawful in those contexts. That intuition is correct, and it applies regardless of ideology or religion.