First off, that dude needs to sue the hell (no pun intended) out of those two. Especially the ass hat that decided to smack him. Those jackoffs should have just called the law and let them earn their pay and not take it upon themselves to interpret the law or constitutional rights of everyone in there.
Now I was curious why he kept saying it was his first amendment right to film since I equate the first amendment right with free speech so I looked it up....
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
That sounds a bit confusing though but in a nutshell, can a church be privately owned? I would think they could tell people to not film under normal circumstances. Of course when you talking about public figures alot of that goes out the window. I would assume all that falls under "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" right?