Did they really have free access to their homes? Alma 23:2

Did they really have free access to their homes? Alma 23:2

Aaron and his brothers teach the King of the Lamanites, the father of King Lamoni, and he and his entire household are converted. The King of the Lamanites sends out a proclamation through the land saying that they should not harm Ammon, Aaron, Omner, Himni, or any other missionary preaching wherever in the land. They should not be put in prison. They should not be spat upon. They should not be scourged. They should not be stoned. They should not be cast out of the synagogues. They should not be hit. They should have free access to their houses, temples, and sanctuaries.

From my totally anachronistic presentist perspective, I get the temples and sanctuaries part (a little bit - I mean, the freedom of religion thing is a little bit at odds with that idea), but their houses? As an American with a deeply rooted historical belief that quartering in a house is wrong (see the Third Amendment to the US Constitution), it seems like entering into a house to preach might be equally wrong.

But maybe their houses were not the same kind of architectural style as western homes? Maybe it was more like a mezzanine public area inside the middle of the homes, not like - the private bedrooms of men and women. I'm sure that their culture was very different from what I'm used to, too.

Answer:
Apparently yes?