Wow.

Take a look at these Drudge headlines:

AZ WARNED: YOU’LL LOSE SUPER BOWL…

Pressure mounts over bill opposed by gays…

Brewer veto drama…

‘I will do right thing’…

Romney: Veto Bill…

UPDATE: ‘Religious Freedom Restoration Act’…

Hollywood Bar Bans Anti-Gay Lawmakers…

‘We Don’t Want Your Kind Here’…

I’ve read the law in question, and it says nothing about gays, lesbians, or homosexuality. I think it’s a ridiculous law, but I don’t understand what is anti-gay about it — any more than it is anti-anything else that might offend someone’s notion of What God Says.

Sure, it would allow people to invoke their “religious beliefs” to fight government actions of which they disapprove, and it might very well cause chaos.

But why is it being spun as anti-gay? It might just as easily be invoked against government infringement of religious beliefs by a wife-beating Muslim who claimed the Koran sanctioned the practice. Or by a spouse claiming he or she had a right to oppose divorce for religious reasons. Or any number of things. Like the prohibition on money lending. Or eating pork. Laws sanction, allow, permit, and otherwise regulate all sorts of things that are condemned in the various holy books. And so what?

There is a fine line between government and freedom. Religious freedom means the right to practice one’s religion free from state interference (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”). But does “free exercise” convey a right to worship freely, or does it convey a right to do anything an individual might think God wants him to do?

It’s worth thinking about, because some people think that the free exercise of their religion translates into the right to kill people they think their “god” wants them to kill, whether it involves Aztec ritual sacrifice, or suicide bombings…