"That's not what he said."
Yes it is. He made two points. He implied the ruling violates the constitutional protection of practice of religion. It does not.
The internal structure argument is also wrong. The judge ruled on who owns a building. An organization can have any internal rules it wants. But if it controls an asset and gets a benefit from the asset, then it owns it.
No. He said: So now we have a judge deciding on the internal organizational structure of a church. First Amendment, anyone?
That's one point as in government doesn't run churches, organisationally or otherwise.
The internal structure argument is also wrong. The judge ruled on who owns a building.
That he did. I know of congregations that own their building and not the "parent" church. You believe a judge has the right to take it away?
An organization can have any internal rules it wants.
And you want a court dictating to churches despite their structure. Sorry. If someone in a church committed a crime, THEY should pay for that crime and not the whole church. Allowing a judge to rule on church structure is dangerous.