The clergy is nervous &mdash; the hellfire-and-brimstone cultural conservative clergy, anyway. Congress&rsquo; recent vote to finally include sexual orientation in hate crimes legislation has caused near hysterics in some religious communities. Someone needs to remind these pious folks that in America, religious freedom is indeed a sacred, secure right. They remain free to demonize the immoral or ungodly, even as those lost souls are free to carry on their lives in peace as they see fit. </p><p> For those in need of the civics lesson, our guaranteed rights in America are broad enough to handle everyone fairly. </p><p> But to hear the squalling of the preachers, you&rsquo;d think government henchmen were being readied to snatch Sunday sermons out of their hands. </p><p> Or that squads of goons were standing by to cart off to re-education camp anyone who dares to profess a Biblical stand against homosexuals. </p><p> All because President Barack Obama, thankfully, saw fit to sign into law an extension of current hate crimes statutes for race, color, religion or national origin to include protections for sexual orientation, gender identity and disability status. The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act took 10 years to gain enough congressional support for passage. That it took Congress so long to acknowledge that, indeed, homosexuals are the targets of attack by those who would rather they didn&rsquo;t exist, ought to cause some serious moral reflection. Instead, some religious leaders insist that extending such protections to homosexuals undermines their right to believe that homosexuality is a sin. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council charged that the new hate crimes law is &ldquo;part of a radical social agenda that could ultimately silence Christians and use the force of government to marginalize anyone whose faith is at odds with homosexuality.&rdquo; </p><p> The Traditional Values Coalition charged that cross-dressing, transvestism and transsexualism would now be federally protected &ldquo;minority groups.&rdquo; Hate crimes statutes do nothing to abridge anybody&rsquo;s right to proclaim a dislike for certain people, or to preach that your God finds their sexuality a sin. To then shoot them or beat them to a pulp because of it is another story. Reference God&rsquo;s commandment not to kill if anyone is unclear on the difference. </p><p> Here&rsquo;s what the hate crimes law does: If hate for any of the protected categories is found to be the motive behind an attack, higher penalties can result and federal authorities have more power to investigate if local and state authorities decline. </p><p> Preaching &ldquo;God hates gays&rdquo; is protected speech. Preaching &ldquo;Let&rsquo;s kill gays,&rdquo; if it leads to violence, is possibly going to get you in trouble. </p><p> But only possibly &mdash; as prosecutions of the Klan have shown, even that&rsquo;s not an open-and-shut case. I suspect what is really feared in the new statute is the growing acceptance of homosexuality. The old ways of pretending it didn&rsquo;t exist, of turning a blind judicial eye when gays and lesbians were singled out as victims, are less and less OK with the general public. </p><p> We accord wide latitude to churches to preach and believe whatever they like. We draw the line when those beliefs and teachings infringe on the civil rights of others. If churches are worried about running afoul of the law, they ought to ask themselves first whether that&rsquo;s because they are interested in infringing the rights of others. If the answer is no, they have nothing to worry about. If the answer is yes, they&rsquo;re already headed for trouble.