Proponents of same-sex ‘marriage’ said it would not affect anyone other than gay couples. “If you don’t like same-sex marriage, then don’t engage in same-sex marriage” was a typical claim. But defenders of natural marriage insisted otherwise. They saw how small businesses like bakers, florists and bed and breakfasts were already being punished by the government for refusing to participate in same-sex weddings.

Now that same-sex ‘marriage’ has been secured as law across the country, some advocates aren’t bothering to pretend anymore that the law won’t affect anyone but same-sex couples. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) said on MSNBC last week
that the constitutional protection of religious liberty only applies to churches, not to individuals:

Certainly the First Amendment says that in institutions of faith that there is absolute power to, you know, to observe deeply held religious beliefs. But I don’t think it extends far beyond that. … [I]n this context, they’re talking about expanding this far beyond our churches and synagogues to businesses and individuals across this country. I think there are clear limits that have been set in other contexts and we ought to abide by those in this new context across America.

The First Amendment, however, says nothing about limiting religious freedom only to churches:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Some see Sen. Baldwin’s comments as a calculated move on the part of the left to begin eroding religious freedoms, part and parcel of their campaign to substitute talk of “freedom of worship” for the more robust right to freedom of religion. Certainly American jurisprudence has defined religious liberty more broadly than Sen. Baldwin does, and her description quickly runs into counterexamples when one considers all the different forms that religion takes in the United States. Some people worship privately in their homes. Others worship in groups outside of an established church. Members of the Baha’i faith generally do not worship in a physical church, yet it is a recognized religion. Many people engage in religious activities outside of their church. If a church directs its members to work in a soup kitchen at The Salvation Army, does that work suddenly become unprotected?

University of St. Thomas Law School professor Thomas Berg notes that the Supreme Court has long held that the First Amendment protects religiously motivated conduct as well as belief.

Also of note: Brian Sikma, writing for Media Trackers, observed that Sen. Baldwin has previously argued that the free speech half of the First Amendment should only apply to individuals. There, she complained that the Supreme Court decision Citizens United gave corporations, unions and other organizations the same free speech that individuals are entitled to, allowing them to contribute money to political campaigns.

While this change-up may appear wildly inconsistent, there is an underlying consistency: make progress toward culturally radical goals incrementally and shift ground only after key ground has been secured — in this case, the Supreme Court ruling redefining marriage. Moving forward, look for more politicians to jump onto the slippery slope with Baldwin.

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/sen-tammy-baldwin-freedom-religion-institutions-faith-period