This will be short and bitter. Rod Dreher links to a fascinating NPR story by Barbara Bradley Hagerty on the clash between gay 'rights' and religious liberty. No prizes to those who divine the tendency of the conflict.
Ponder, though, for your edification, these expressions of fulminant turpitude and stupidity, from Dreher's comments section:
Next time somebody asks, "How can gay marriage hurt anybody else?" -- well, here's one answer. You discriminate against law-abiding individuals who live in a way you don't approve of, your church, synagogue, mosque or religious institution will pay a price. You can't deny it.
Some, apparently, not only perceive the trajectory of the law, but positively exult in the coercive possibilities: we will be coerced into modifying our religious practices and doctrines, and should we resist, they intend to drive us to ruin. The thought of legal and financial autos-de-fa for dissenters from the established orthodoxy causes them to experience frissons of sheer ecstasy.
In that sense, it's no different from 1960 and the society deciding whether it is appropriate to discriminate against blacks and interracial couples based on religious belief. Should believers be able to discriminate with impugnity in violation of laws enacted by legislatures? That's the bottom line, and it has nothing to do with gay marriage.
These cretins need to get their agitprop straight. Is behaviour ontology, or is it an act of self-creation, a discovery by the individual of his own private meaning of the mystery of existence? It cannot be both. If the former, then those who oppose homosexual marriage are equally as determined as those who claim homosexual identity; if the latter, they are equally as engaged in the project of self-creation; and in neither instance is there a rational basis for rank ordering the outcomes of the deterministic chain or the projects of self-creation. In truth, no one much cares one way or they other; for these are merely ideological battering rams, employed not to establish the truth of the matter, but to assail the crumbling citadel of Christian morality and mores. In other words, it does not matter whether sexual orientation is heritable or chosen, or in what degrees between them; rather, a rival moral claim is asserted, and these arguments are merely the exoteric means by which the esoteric goals, already proclaimed by the would-be commissars, are to be realized: we are to be repressed, and they are to exercise power.
They'll still be able to preach their beliefs, hire and fire according to their beliefs, unless its publically funded, and say no to whoever they want if doing otherwise would go against their beliefs.
Except... no, they won't, which is the entire burden of the article. Are businesspeople fined for refusing to serve lesbians, which decision was made on religious grounds, free to "say no to whoever they want if doing otherwise would go against their beliefs"? God Almighty, we cannot simply be governed by the evil, they must also be stupid, so stupid that they could not even pass a grammar school reading comprehension test, malignantly, skull-splittingly stupid.
And so it comes to pass that the old Soviet doctrine of religious liberty comes to America: we will be free to profess whatever creeds it so pleases us - between our ears, and no further.