The New York Times on religious freedom and "anti-gay bigotry"

It's revealing, and also a sign of things to come.  In this overheated editorial, the New York Times slams the proposed First Amendment Defense Act.  As some readers might know, John Inazu, Michael McConnell, and I have suggested that the FADA should be revised to focus more directly on protecting religious believers and religious institutions (schools, hospitals, universities, social-service agencies, etc.) from being penalized in various ways for acting on the basis of their religious commitments regarding marriage.  (Ryan Anderson and MOJ's own Robby George disagreed with our suggestion, here, while Rusty Reno endorsed our approach, here.)

The Times piece directs some of its criticisms at some of the same features of the current form of FADA that Inazu, McConnell, and I were concerned about.  (Yikes!).  But, make no mistake:  In the view of the Times (and of a great many other "thought leaders," I fear) the FADA is objectionable in principle -- precisely because it protects religious institutions -- and not because of possible applications or questions about its scope):

In other words, it would use taxpayers’ money to negate federal anti-discrimination measures protecting gays and lesbians, using the idea of religious freedom as cover.

For example, a religiously affiliated college that receives federal grants could fire a professor simply for being gay and still receive those grants.

What the Times means by "using the idea of religious freedom as cover" is "allowing religious institutions to act in accord with their missions and commitments."  Yes, religious freedom -- in fact, not as "cover" -- includes, in some instances, the right to engage in what would otherwise be "discrimination."  But, as I've written many times, it is not necessarily wrongful discrimination -- discrimination that should bother the liberal state or its taxpayers -- for a religious institution to take religious commitments into account when conducting its affairs.  There's no reason (no good reason, anyway -- there are plenty of bad ones) to insist that religious institutions somehow become unworthy of cooperating with the government simply because they hire for mission, in accord with their religious commitments.