So, in this case, the fact that the one guy engages in conduct that the vast majority find highly offensive does not give the majority the power to silence him.
That is my larger point- rights are not subject to a veto by the majority, no matter how obnoxious the enjoyment of those rights by the minority might happen to be.
Your example stated that he was outside the church, not inside interfering with what was going on there. If he were inside and interfering then the majority would certainly have the right to silence him.
In the same line of thinking, keep pornography on channels that identify them as such and are limited to those who select them for viewing. To show a pornographic commercial on public airwaves where one cannot immediately decide whether to view or not just isn't acceptable. It takes the choice away from me, even if I grab the remote quickly enough to change the channel.