text: Kudos to the Post for juxtaposing two editorials on religious liberty. 
   
  In the cake case, the editorial argues that the cake artist shouldn't be forced to contribute to an activity that violates his conscience.  
  In the school case, the Post argues that tax-payers should be forced to contribute to activities that violate their conscience.  
  The vouchers the Post want could go to Muslim madrasas that teach Sharia law, for example, which would likely violate the conscience of many.  Surely, excluding Muslim schools from a voucher program would be the kind of unconstitutional bigotry the Post has long railed against.
  Contributing to "Christian" school that teach bigotry and discrimination would violate the conscience of many tax-payers also.  Will the vouchers be conditioned on the school teaching the "proper" moral values?
  This has less to do with respecting conscience and more to do with undermining public schools and cutting teachers' incomes.