"That's probably unlikely to happen in this country," Feldblum said. "So it ends up having not a lot of credibility."

I agree - but I'd go beyond what Feldblum said and argue that jailed ministers and churches forced to provide same-sex unions aren't "probably unlikely," they are flat-out impossible.

That's because under the First Amendment, churches have an absolute right to determine which couples they will join together. Protestants have no right to demand to be married in a Catholic church. Atheists can't walk into the local Presbyterian church and demand a service. Churches are free to place numerous conditions on couples seeking to marry, such as mandatory counseling, and most do. I am not aware of any legal case that has ever chipped away at church autonomy in this arena.

Feldblum pointed out that there will be conflicts in other arenas. For example, the FRC and allied groups love to point to a case pending in Arizona that deals with a photography studio that is being sued because it denied services to a same-sex couple.

The Religious Right thinks this is a great horror story for their side, but they overlook one salient fact: a photography studio and a church are not equivalent entities from a legal perspective. Generally speaking, a secular business holds itself out as a "public accommodation" and pledges to serve all people. A church does no such thing. Churches, by dint of the First Amendment, have the right to refuse membership or services to anyone. Most businesses do not.

There was a time when blacks could not eat in certain restaurants, and when a wedding photographer could have refused service to an interracial couple. Anti-discrimination laws put a stop to that. Now, some gay-rights activists are arguing that secular businesses should be required to treat them equally as well. Such an argument might carry the day when applied to a business. It will fail every time when applied to a church.

Stories abound in the media of "pro-life pharmacists" who refuse to fill birth-control prescriptions and Muslim taxi drivers who will not transport people carrying bottles of liquor. In one case, a Muslim grocery store clerk refused to ring up customers' packages of bacon.

Are these legitimate religious freedom claims? Maybe and maybe not. The courts will sort that out. In any case, it's important to remember that none of these services - the pharmacy, the taxi and the grocery store - is in the religion business. A house of worship is and thus can claim First Amendment protection. Perkins and his pals are trying to take rules that apply to businesses and say they will be imposed on churches as well. That is not going to happen.

The FRC is very worried about the November elections and is looking for any issue it can to stir up the Religious Right's shock troops and scare pastors. In that sense, the California high court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage was actually a gift for the group. Based on the number of fund-raising appeals the FRC has sent out about it, I'd say it has been a lucrative one, too.

Near the end of her remarks, Feldblum expressed the hope that advocates on both sides would "stay in a reasonable conversation." I appreciate the sentiment, but having followed the Religious Right for more than 20 years, I must conclude that if Feldblum is looking for a reasonable conversation, she came to the wrong place.

Digg
del.icio.us
Newsvine
Reddit
stumbleupon
Facebook