"Scare Tactics," cont'd

Commenting on Peter Steinfels' recent column, which asked whether "same-sex marriage will collide with religious liberty," Rob asks whether it is a "scare tactic" or a "prophetic insight" to call attention to the possibility of this collision.  The Steinfels column, among other things, quotes Marc Stern -- who believes that legal recognition of same-sex marriage will make clashes with religious liberty "inevitable" -- as saying:

"No one seriously believes that clergy will be forced, or even asked, to perform marriages that are anathema to them," Mr. Stern has written. But for other individuals and institutions opposed on religious grounds to same-sex marriage, its legal acceptance would have "substantial impact."

He has in mind schools, health care centers, social service agencies, summer camps, homeless shelters, nursing homes, orphanages, retreat houses, community centers, athletic programs and private businesses or services that operate by religious standards, like kosher caterers and marriage counselors.

I wonder.  According to this story in the Telegraph, under proposals being considered by the government in the United Kingdom, the Church of England could be "forced to bless gay weddings":

New Government proposals on equality could require clergy to bless homosexual "weddings" or face prosecution, the Church of England said yesterday.

It said the proposed regulations could undermine official teaching and require Christians to act against their religious convictions.

The Sexual Orientation (Provision of Goods and Services) Regulations will make discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation illegal in the same way as race or sex.

Here is a link to the government's "Consultation Paper."  Professor Friedman, over at Religion Clause blog, is also discussing the proposals:

The Consultation Paper indicated that the government was proposing only limited exemptions for religious organizations. It said that exemptions should be limited to activities closely linked to religious observance or practices that arise from the basic doctrines of a faith. It would not exempt social services offered by religious organizations, commercial activities, or services offered under government contracts.

As I (and others) have noted many times on this blog -- in the context of, among other things, the contraception-mandate and pharmacists'-conscience controversies -- it is not clear that religious freedom is well served by mandates with exemptions whose applicability depends on determinations by government officials that activities are, or are not, "closely linked to religious observance or practices that arise from the basic doctrines of a faith."