…one thing is certain: the religious liberty of individuals and faith-based institutions — up to and including churches — is now threatened in a way not present before the ruling. When the Court heard oral arguments for Obergefell in April, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli’s admitted that the tax-exempt status of religious institutions “could be an issue” if same-sex marriage is recognized as a right.<\/p>\n
Sounding very much unlike the man from Burwell, Chief Justice Roberts’s Obergefell dissent lays the stakes on the table:<\/p>\n
Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is — unlike the right imagined by the majority — actually spelled out in the Constitution. Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.<\/p>\n
How do we get from “marriage equality” to churches forced into performing weddings that violate their teachings? Lawsuits.<\/p>\n