[messierhunter]

I really don't think churches that don't want to are going to be forced to perform gay weddings.

There's a difference between being forced to perform gay weddings and being forced to allow gay weddings. The former implies involvement on the part of the minister (though there is a school of thought that says it's possible to revoke the ability of a minister to sign off on marriage certificates if they refuse to sign a gay couple's certificate) and staff, the latter is simply the willingness of the church to rent out the grounds (the facility) for the purposes of a gay wedding performed by the couple's own officiator. I've been to several weddings that took place in a church other than the couple's home church and with a minister not in any way affiliated with the church it took place in. Sometimes a couple chooses a wedding location for purely aestheic reasons (shocker, I know). If a church refuses to allow their grounds to be used for that reason, they might lose their tax exempt status. Lawsuits are already starting to prove my point.

[mngran2]

Yes, many churches allow non - parishioner to use their facilities for wedding ceremonies, but it's always the churches' choice. Once again, I ask you, when is the last time you saw, for example, a Catholic church forced to allow a Buddhist (or any other religion's) ceremony to take place (whether the Catholic priest was involved or not) in a Catholic church? When was the last time a church was forced to admit any person it didn't want because of that person's "protected class"?