I read about this story of a baker who is being forced to sell to a homosexual couple here...
The thing that I've always thought about these situations that have occurred is the thought, this is what happen when one allows error the same rights as Truth. On each side a "religious" view is being projected. In one case you have a person who is in support of "homosexual marriage" and seeking to have this publicly acknowledged by everyone. On the other side we have a person who does not wish to acknowledge homosexual marriage through the action of baking a cake (or whatever), which in doing so constitutes a type of support of the "homosexual marriage" taking place.
The argument for religious liberty MUST be based in the Truth of the Church, otherwise, it will fail, if it isn't blatantly obvious by now. As something that I have said before, it is impossible to have a morally neutral situation. Either morals from the conservative or liberal side are being "imposed" into the debate. That is to say, either we're imposing our morals on them, or they're imposing their morals on us. It is NOT possible for neither side to "impose" morals.
Think about it...If the baker is indeed forced to serve against his will, he has been forced to publicly acknowledge homosexuality. If the baker wins, homosexuality would not be acknowledged (which is what the person is seeking, deeply)...while most certainly, there are multiple options for getting a cake, and someone would be happy to give this couple business...What if this is the only bakery within a reasonable distance? Does this not make the situation different? One wouldn't expect anyone to travel an hour just to get a cake?
Error does not have a right to be promulgated in public...Truth however does. Since I'm quite familiar with the field of academia, I'll go with this example. If someone is doing research on a topic...that person can't present their findings as fact to their classes without a public criticism, or defense of their work. Yet there can easily be discussions on the research in private "think tank" so to speak. It is similar to this with errors of various kinds. It is one thing to discuss them in private in the "dialogue towards Truth" so to speak....however to present these errors as Truth would be a scandal to the rights of Truth to be presented for everyone to hear. (It's another issue entirely to follow)
The rather infamous document Dignitatis Humane can be read for yourselves...but in light of that, I wish to propose some questions...
1) Is the premise for Religious Liberty flawed?
2) Is it possible to have multiple definitions for religious liberty?
In our situation with the baker and the couple, is it not true that coercion from the "couple" is happening? That is to say if we're to understand religious liberty as follows: "This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits."...Are not the "couple" acting within their private beliefs? Do you see the problem here?
This is why it is important to define the parameters through with we're talking about "Religious Liberty" lest we be defeated with a taste of our own medicine. Religious Liberty can't be a vague principle which is not defined in the Truth of the Church...the quicker our Bishops get this, the better...and the more likely chance that they can actually win their case as a whole. The sooner we realize that we can't place error on the same plane as Truth, the better.