Religious Freedom and Anti-Discrimination Law . . . again

Here is an op-ed worth reading, by John Leo, on a matter we've discussed often here at MOJ:  "Religious Freedom Must Trump Anti-Discrimination Law":

The case of Michelle McCusker, the unmarried and pregnant teacher fired by a Catholic school, may turn out to be an important one, with a heavy impact on our understanding of religious liberty. The New York Civil Liberties Union is handling her suit, and if the school and the local diocese don't fold their cards and settle, the NYCLU will lose in court. And it deserves to.

McCusker, 26, is suing the Diocese of Brooklyn and St. Rose of Lima school in Queens for dismissing her as a pre-kindergarten teacher last fall. That was two days after McCusker told her principal that she was three months pregnant and had no intention of marrying the father.

The civil liberties union made a mistake in taking this case, because it is now in the position of arguing that an anti-discrimination law overrides the First Amendment right of free exercise of religion. Among other things, free exercise means that a church has an absolute right to designate those who speak in its name. If it can't do this, then its religious message is corrupted and the constitutional rights of its members violated. . . .

It strikes me that (a) McCusker should lose, under any meaningful notion of religious freedom, but (b) it is not entirely clear, under present-day doctrine, that the First Amendment requires her to lose.  Do any other MOJ church-state experts have a take?