Threat to religious freedom

The New York Times notes that religious conservatives are making a new argument against gay "marriage" -- namely that it's incompatible with religious freedom. Set aside for now the typical NYT bias -- couching the argument in its lead grafs in terms of conservatives trying to drum things up from fear of losing their base, etc. Here is the meat of the argument:

To revive some of the emotions around the issue, several organizers said they were taking up the argument that legal recognition of same-sex marriages would cramp the free expression of religious groups who consider such unions a sin — an idea much discussed at the conference.
“That is an issue that wasn’t around two years ago and one that is absolutely moving to the very forefront,” said the Rev. Donald Wildmon, founder of the American Family Association, a conservative Christian broadcaster and advocacy group.
Although that idea may seem far-fetched to many liberal or secular-minded voters, legal scholars across the political spectrum agree that authorizing same-sex marriages could present legal questions for some religious groups. A Roman Catholic group in Massachusetts, for example, recently stopped offering children for adoption rather than provide them to gay couples.
At the Values Voters conference, Mr. Perkins played a preview for an October telecast to Christian broadcasters that dramatized the conflicts in stark terms. He interviewed parents who are suing the town of Lexington, Mass., because its public school assigned their 7-year-old son a book called “King and King,” about two princes who marry.

Amplifying what I wrote below, saying the homosex activists simply want "tolerance" is not true. Nor could it be (I'm not arguing bad faith). Tolerance is only possible for that which society considers "tolerable," and what is "tolerable" cannot be understood apart from some (religious or quasi-religious) notion of the good -- or right and wrong. The judgment that homosexuality is a morally neutral fact or attribute is not compatible with freedom for religions that say it is not, because that judgment of so-called "neutrality" will determine public policy on such matters as, say, assigning books in schools.

I'll note with amusement that the Times sees fit to note that the "idea may seem far-fetched to many liberal or secular-minded voters" -- and then goes on to cite two examples of how "tolerance" for homosexuality impinges on religious freedom (there are many others). Why is that necessary to note? "The idea that Bill Clinton is a cad may seem far fetched to many liberal or secular-minded voters" followed by references to Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers, etc. Or should I be cynical and suggest that "liberal or secular-minded voters" are blind to events before their eyes because, in their typical narrative, their template of understanding "Christians" are by definition persecutors, rather than persecuted.