"Equal Treatment for All", religious freedom, and priorities

Sally Cohn's recent piece, "The New Post-Homophobic Christianity", attracted a lot of attention across the interwebs.   Most of the concern focused on this line:  "Will anti-gay Christians be politically and socially ostracized? I sure hope so."  As some people pointed out, this sentiment seems in tension with some other things Cohn has written about the importance of civility and humility.

Another aspect of the piece jumped out at me, though:

As for everyone else, including florists and county clerks, yes, you will now have to provide the same services to straight couples that you provide to gay couples. Don’t like it? Find a new job. The law also requires that clerks issue birth certificates to the children of single mothers and that florists provide flowers for interracial weddings, regardless of the religious beliefs that have definitely been cited now and throughout history to condemn these families as well. Still, that doesn’t mean the law is trouncing on religion. It means the law is prioritizing equal treatment for all, as it should.

Obviously -- and notwithstanding the often-noted fact that "equality", by itself, is not usually doing the real work in any moral or political argument -- we are committed to "equal justice under law."  (Whether "equal justice" always and in every context requires "equal treatment" is what we argue about.)  Is it obvious, though, that "equal treatment for all" does or should, morally or constitutionally, enjoy "priority" over "religion" or, more specifically, "religious freedom"?  It's a complicated question, for sure.  After all, the content of "religious freedom" is itself determined at least in part by the demands of public order, the common good, others' rights, and other aspirations like "equal justice under law."  But, the content of "equal justice under law" is also, in a similar way, determined "at least in part by the demands of public order, the common good, others' rights, and other aspirations like 'religious freedom.'"  

What is (among other things) worrisome about the sentiments expressed by Cohn is that she seems to make "religious freedom" simply what's left over after we have finished comprehensively the work of securing "equal treatment for all."  I don't think there's reason to expect, though, that very much would be left over.

I developed something like this idea in more detail in this short law-review article, which just came out in the Southern California Law Review.