The law provides exemptions for pastors, religious institutions and non-profit corporations affiliated with religious organizations, but The New York Times suggests those are unnecessary. So Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel Action advises the Times to take a closer look at the Constitution.

Mainly, he notes "our First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of religious expression. This is troubling, but not surprising that The New York Times is once again publicly...editorializing about the need to trample on individuals' religious liberties," he laments.

Barber goes on to argue that the religious exemptions are worthless, as the only intent for their inclusion was to convince fence-sitting senators to vote for the legalization.

"The true motivation here is not for marriage equality; the true motivation is to, under penalty of law, ensure that all Americans are compelled to embrace the demonstrably destructive and immoral homosexual lifestyle," the attorney points out.

In order to accomplish that, any opposition must be silenced. In truth, Barber does not think the religious exemption goes far enough because it does not protect individual people of faith, especially those in business who oppose homosexuality.