Standing to Resist on Religious Grounds

There's a great blog post by Dan Mitchell on the manufactured controversy over Indiana's law to protect religious objections here. 

My quibble with Dan is the looseness allowed for determining what is "moral" and what is not:

If we abandon the traditional core principles of morality rooted in Christian philosophy and natural law, then what determines an act or belief to be “immoral” and how do we distinguish it from being “unpopular” or “politically incorrect.” 

I am a Roman catholic. Do I have a right to embrace our catechism teachings developed over many centuries, or do I have to kowtow to the prevailing elites and say I am personally offended by those who refuse to sell their goods and services for use at gay weddings? Do I have a right to maintain that marriage is a solemn and holy union between a man and a woman, and dissent with those who toss centuries of Christian philosophy aside to impose their enlightened view? 

Similarly, may I continue to maintain that life is not only precious, it is more precious and profound than we can ever know, even though the enlightened elites insist I defer to the moral development of those with wombs, or those who administer death row justice, or those who allocate funds for medicare purposes and thus hold life and death power over their supplicants?

This new tactic of imposed orthodoxy in the name of tolerance is not about moral formation (or tolerance), it’s about fascist control. “Immoral” is becoming the label associated with those who resist the Regime’s dictates in some way. It is so intellectually shallow, but the prevailing dearth of critical thinking in the electorate not only makes it possible, it allows the fascism to thrive.