E. J. Montini of the Arizona Republic reports that ". . . one of the lawsuits challenging SB 1070 is based on the notion that the law inhibits First Amendment freedom to worship." As Montini correctly states, "Among other things, SB 1070 makes it a crime to knowingly transport, harbor, conceal or shield an illegal immigrant if you do so while committing a separate criminal offense."
This provision of the law will of course cause trouble for those pastors and other church members who transport illegals to and from church functions. Suppose Pastor X is pulled over for a traffic violation while shuttling a group of illegals. Said pastor is liable to prosecution under the 1070 law. That is as it should be since the pastor is aiding and abetting the flouting of U. S. law.
But by what stretch of logic does one conclude that violators of U. S. immigration law are having their First Amendment rights violated? They have no such rights! Those are rights of U. S. citizens, not rights of anyone, citizen or not. But even if you think that illegal aliens do have First Amendment rights, or some analogous universal human right, there is nothing in 1070 that prohibits the free exercise of religion on any reasonable construal of 'prohibit.' The right to the free exercise of religion does not give one the right to do anything in the free exercise thereof.
Take a simple example. Catholic priests cannot be prohibited by the state from saying mass. To do so they need wine. But there are laws against theft, so they need to come by their wine by some legal means. Now suppose some benighted liberal argues that the laws against theft inhibit the First Amendment freedom to practice one's religion by prohibiting the stealing of wine and other supplies needed at mass. Anyone can see that to argue in such a way would be a joke. To take a more drastic case, suppose there is a Satanic ritual that requires the killing of cats. No sane person could argue that the laws against cruelty to animals interfere with the First Amendment rights of satanists.
Similarly with 1070. No rational person could argue that it inhibits First Amendment rights. The right to practice one's religion does not give one the right to break laws in its practice.
Churchmen need to reflect carefully on their relation to the State. If they flout its laws, and in so doing undermine the rule of law, then who will protect them when they need it? Will the good pastors who aid and abet illegal aliens forego calling up the police when they need protection? Will they try to have it both ways, deriving the benefits from the rule of law while undermining it?