Is a law constitutional if it allows you to deny me a legitimate service, because you are morally or religiously opposed to my receiving that service?
Alberta is hoping to:
"develop legislative options to ensure the rights of religious officials and those Albertans, who hold social or cultural beliefs or values, whether religious or non-religious, will be free to express opposition to the traditional definition of marriage or a change to the traditional definition of marriage and will not be required to advocate, promote, or teach about marriage in a way that conflicts with their beliefs.”
I think we can all agree, that regardless of what we may believe on a religious or moral level -- legally and constitutionally we don't have the right to refuse a service to a person based on their sexual orientation.
Substitute 'wedding' for other services -- a lawyer refusing service to handle a gay couple's adoption or divorce; a marriage counsellor refusing to provide counselling to a gay couple; a hotelier refusing to provide a gay couple accomodation . . .
Will the moral or religious rights of a person who is against same-sex marriage, outweigh the right of a gay couple to have a service performed?
When there are conflicting rights (the right to be married vs the right to freedom of religion/free speech) someone's rights are going to have to take precedence. The courts have consistently sided with the rights of gays over the right of Christians to express themselves, and I see no reason why this would change.
A law permitting conscientious objection to gays and lesbians having access to an institution that is available to the rest of the population, would be challenged in a heartbeat.
If anyone can make a coherant argument to the contrary, I'd love to hear it.