[thoughtomator]

I don't see the freedom of religion angle as being that strong. This looks primarily like a case of coerced - and therefore unconstitutional - association to me.

[Kuksool]

If the issue is a freedom of association, then precedent is on the churches' side. In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts when gay activists tried to use a similar law in NJ.

[jwpjr]

I am probably about evenly split on this now that I think about it. Either way, I don't feel a church should be required to employ someone who scoffs at their beliefs! It would be like require a Jewish congregation to employ a child care worker who is not Jewish and insists on breaking out the fried ham every day at lunch time. Or requiring a health foods store that caters to vegetarians to employ someone who insists on sitting at the lunch counter every day and eating a big ol' rare hamburger patty.