What it literally says is not what you just said Reelya.
What it says is:
Congress shall not pass a law that curtails the expression of religious freedom (specifically through enactment of a recognized state religion), that curtails the ability of people to speak freely, for the press to operate without political hindrance, or for private citizens to peacefully assemble to petition for an address of grievances.
Specifically, in the form of this exact sentence.
"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."
As I pointed out, asserting that it applies only to churches and journalistic speech, does not follow grammatically. I gave a corrected version of the sentence where that would be true, but that is not how the sentence is written. It specifically separates the freedom of speech from that of the press, with a ", or" clause.
This means, per the 1st amendment, congress cannot pass a law that restricts a person's ability to express themselves. PERIOD.
(Now, just go try and reconcile that with the DMCA's anticircumvention verbiage, just as an example.)
Laws that are created without that EXPLICIT purpose, still fall foul of the amendment, because such a necessity for explicitness is not stated.
The way the courts *ACTUALLY* get around it, is through the farce that such TOS contracts are conducted from a position of equity; They are not. BUT IF THEY WERE, then people would be free to NOT use Disney theaters to watch a new release. The fiction of this equity then makes the allowance and provision of the onerous components of a TOS legal. (Since the common law requirement for such transactive agreements stems from the basis of such equity, and a whole branch of law covers the provision of such equity.)