Sen. Mike Lee introduces bill to protect religious schools in era of LGBT fascism

In the event the Supreme Court decides that gay marriage is now an inalienable right in all 50 states, what's to stop religious schools in America from coming under the same fascist pressure as Christian bakers, florists and photographers? The LGBT mission, you realize, is not just to allow gay marriage. It's to compel every individual and institution in America to support and facilitate it, or face ruin.

Against that obvious danger, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) hopes to stand in the gap:

To address the concern that religious institutions may lose their tax-exempt status if the Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage later this month, the Utah Republican plans to introduce legislation next week that would ban that from happening. Lee said his bill, which has not yet been released, mirrors legislation he introduced in 2013, called the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act. “We’ve made some tweaks with the wording here or there, but the overall effect of it is basically the same,” he said. The 2013 Marriage and Religious Freedom Act prohibits the federal government from taking “an adverse action against a person,” when they act on a religious belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

---

In light of the Supreme Court’s gay marriage case, Lee says the issue poses a real “threat” to religious institutions. “These threats tend to emerge most when government expands its footprint,” Lee said. “We need to draw lines around the power of government.” Get ready, of course, for characterizations of the bill as "legalized discrmination" and so forth. Maybe we'll even see weasely Chamber of Commerce types threatening to leave the entire country because Lee's bill creates an "unwelcoming atmosphere" or something. But Americans who have decided gay marriage is OK, or at least that it's no one's business that that of the people who want to engage in it, need to really decide how far they think this principle should go. Does your support of gay marriage extend to a belief that anyone asked to participate in a gay wedding must do so, regardless of their own personal belief? Does your support of gay marriage extend to the belief that religious institutions must treat two homosexuals as legitimately married, even if that violates their own statements of faith? Lee is trying to establish a principle here that says that even if the government wants to grant a certain request to certain individuals, that does not justify burdening other individuals or institutions in such a way that they are required to act in violation of their own moral codes. In other words, if you want to consider yourself married, and you can find people who are willing to go along with you on that - performing the ceremony, catering it, extending health care benefits to you - then knock yourself out. But no one who is not willing shall be compelled by the state to do so, and that includes institutions as well as individuals. (And contrary to the weird argument liberals make, there is no reason for-profit corporations should not be included in these protections.) Kudos to Sen. Lee for introducing this bill. The dishonest mischaracterizations are as certain as an Obama veto threat, but that is no reason not to press forward with it. That is the Senate's job. If Obama wants to be the only reason religious schools have their constitutional rights violated, then let him explain that. By the way, speaking of constitutional rights: The Constitution clearly grants the right to the exercise of religion. Where does it grant the right for homosexuals to marry each other? (In fact, where does it deal with marriage at all?) I ask the question because, if the rights of two groups are coming into conflict, it seems to me that a simple and obvious remedy would be to check and see if one of the two rights is spelled out in the Constitution. So why don't we do that here? We should, and Sen. Lee's bill would make sure we do.