Rhode Island, marriage, and religious liberty: Some questions for Michael Perry

As MOJ readers know, a group of law professors (including Tom Berg and me) have been urging legislators proposing or considering laws that change the legal definition of "marriage" so as to include same-sex couples to take care to accommodate religious freedom in the process.  (Go here to see some of the letters.)  As we see it, this accommodation should involve more than assurances that clergy will not be required by law to officiate at same-sex couples' wedding ceremonies; it should include, for example, assurances that religious institutions and organizations that oppose the proposed change will not be penalized (e.g., through loss of access to contracting or public forums, or through loss of otherwise available tax treatment) and that such institutions and organizations would not be required to, say, rent out a generally available banquet hall to a same-sex couple celebrating their wedding.  And so on.

To be sure, in a jurisdiction that includes same-sex unions in the category of marriage, there will be limits on the extent to which religious objections to that inclusion can and should be accommodated.  But, the view expressed in these letters has been that the accommodations should be generous.  I know that Michael and some other scholars who support the proposed changes to the legal definition of marriage are also committed to religious-liberty protections.  (See, for example, Marc Stern's recent piece in USA Today.)  How far, though, can or should such protections extend?