The religious
exemption language was vital in securing the
votes of four Republican senators which allowed the bill to pass. 

Under the New York
law, it appears that Catholic adoption agencies cannot be forced to place
children with same-sex couples as has happened elsewhere, and same-sex couples
will not be able to use the property of religious organisations for any purpose
is contrary to the ethos of the organisation, as has also happened
elsewhere.

This
is in stark contrast to Ireland where the last Government refused every appeal
to include a religious freedom clause in the Civil Partnership Act. The Church
of Ireland was among those seeking such a clause.

According to Austin
R. Nimocks, a prominent US religious freedom lawyer, the New York law will avoid
the scenario which arose in Massachusetts in 2004 when same-sex marriage was
legalised, where Catholic Charities chose to get out of adoption instead of
being forced to place children with same-sex
couples.

Mr Nimocks also said that he believed that
churches or religious organisations that own property would not be required to
have their property used or appropriated for purposes inconsistent with their
theological beliefs or views about marriage under the
provisions.

However he says the
provision doesn’t protect a husband-and-wife photography team from state action
if they declined to take pictures at a same-sex wedding.

And private adoption
agencies that are not overtly religious but which believe they want to adopt
kids out only to moms and dads would not be covered.

It also would do
nothing to prevent the teaching of same-sex marriage in New York schools, he
says.

The religious freedom
provision, Nimocks said, in an interview with US publication Baptist Press,
would ultimately come down to the interpretation of the courts.

“Where a conflict
arises, it will be played out in court or some tribunal. This language does not
cover everything it needs to cover and everybody that needs to be covered. In
terms of what it purports to cover, it remains to be seen whether it will be
interpreted in the way that many legislators who enacted it are promising it
will be.”

He added that the
provision “does not protect individuals”.

He said: “It does not
protect private business owners. It does not protect, for example, a bed and
breakfast owner who is using their own private personal property in the type of
intimate setting that a bed and breakfast is. It does not protect licensed
professionals.

“For example, it does
not protect counselors. It also does not protect lawyers — you may have a
family law attorney who does not want to do a same-sex divorce because of their
deeply held religious beliefs. It does not protect fertility doctors who may
have a strict belief and only want to help [heterosexual] married couples
because they believe a kid deserves both a mom and a
dad.”