I guess that's true from that perspective. However, liberals are defending the intrusion as being protected by the 1st Amendment which of course, it is not. That's where I'm coming from.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we say it was a Constitutional right to speak against the pastor's actions, by intruding on the church service they committed the fallacy of determining guilt by (religious) association. To the protestors, the congregants sharing religious ideals with the pastor made them guilty of complicity in his actions as an ICE officer.
There are a million things wrong with this stunt that violated a plethora of basic principles of accountability and committed a whole slew of logical fallacies by the protestors and some here in this discussion trying to rationalize or justify it. One poster here said "A church service was interrupted, it's not the end of the world.". I believe this falls under the fallacy of a false dichotomy. But in any case, no one suggested it was the end of the world and everyone on both sides understands that it wasn't. So it was a stupid thing to say.