I get what you‘re trying to say and I‘m not a fan of churches either, but this just legitimises this idea that we need states and governments to ban attending an activity entirely based on negative actions of a some of that group. By that logic there is a whole lot of shit we need to ban including schools, kindergardens and daycares.

The logical outcome then to "protect the children" is to ban any contact to any adult whatsoever, including the own family members since those are most likely to abuse the children.

They also give alcoholic wine to children, like wtf

what you did just now is called whataboutism. there is no number of child rapes by catholic priests that would influence the acceptability for a child to be admitted to an upside down leopard thong show. we cannot just claim that someone else did something worse than what we did, and that it somehow makes what we did okay. it's also problematic because it presents a false choice. we do not have to be both against children being admitted to see men dry humping each other dressed as santa's reindeer and in favor of children being raped by catholic priests.

To directly quote the second and third paragraphs of the article:

The judge, Gregory Presnell, was acting on a request by the restaurant chain Hamburger Mary’s, which sued Florida last month claiming that the law was overly broad and put a chilling effect on the right to free speech under the First Amendment.

Presnell, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, determined that while some people may find a drag performer reading a children’s book to a minor during a performance to be inappropriate, it doesn’t necessarily constitute an obscene performance. He also stated that current obscenity laws already “provide Defendant with the necessary authority to protect children from any constitutionally unprotected obscene exhibitions or shows.”

So... No.