Actually, the law specifically states that the government (ie - the monopoly of violence) may not compel a business to deliver service to individuals in a nature contrary to their religious beliefs unless it proves it to be "is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest."
Basically it keeps people from trolling religious businesses trying to sue them and fine them out of existence for not participating materially in same-sex, polygamous, or post-divorce weddings (state or private) if that's against their belief. Likewise a Jehovah's Witness who won't make cakes for a religious holidays, state holidays, or birthdays can't be held liable. Kosher and Halal delis aren't going to serve you pork either.
I think in a similar vein an atheist photograph who "doesn't do church weddings" likewise can't be compelled by force to choose between his beliefs and his livelihood.
At the same time, if provides for remedy so that someone is not forced to go on to the next town / county / state / whatever to get access to a service. You can have your wedding cake. You just can't use the state to shut down Shawna Taylor's bakery out of business because "she's a bigot!" and won't cater a same-sex wedding because she's Muslim when Joey Baldazzio's bakery across the street will do it without batting an eye-lash.
Marty Lund
Here's the problem with that: it won't work. It
can't. These laws are riddled with legal, logical, and theological traps.
First of all, there are faiths out there that would LOVE to discriminate against others than gays. Christian Identity adherents would love to legally refuse service to non-white minorities of all kinds. Which wins out? The new state law that allows them to do so, or the federal laws that say it is unconstitutional? (I think we all know how that fight ends.)
On the flip side, believers of the Nation of Islam* may well try to use the law to discriminate against whites. Would NoI have that right, when CI wouldn't? Is it good law to protect the intolerance of one group while the other group's is not?
Second, opposition to laws like this will be strong, intelligent and vocal. Some of it will even be religiously literate. And no court will merely take the religious person's word for it that such discrimination is justified by their faith. There will be depositions at least, and a court case is probable.
Nearly every major faith in the world incorporates some form of
The Golden Rule as a fundamental tenet. They may have exceptions, but mostly involving instances when the faith or members of it are under violent attack. IOW, self-preservation is a common exception.
Assuming that Christianity in its myriad forms is the major faith tradition in the USA, how does it do so?
Which commandment is the most important of all?” Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
(Emphasis mine.)
The second greatest commandment in Christianity is the Golden Rule, restated.
This situation, however, is not a violent confrontation, so there is probably no loophole there.
It will be hard for anyone to take the witness stand and assert- with support from recognizable theological sources- that their faith prohibits things like making wedding cakes for gays while simultaneously staying true to The Golden Rule.
But let's say the witness is prepared.
That still puts a secular court judge in the position of making a legal ruling on
what the actual doctrine of a faith is, and whether the person asserting protection under this kind of law
genuinely believes their faith supports discrimination..
Not only does this get into the Golden Rule problem, it raises SERIOUS issues regarding the separation of church & state. Here is the government- in the form of the judiciary- defining religious belief & doctrine.
And on a state by state basis.
On those public policy grounds alone, it is far more efficient and less fraught with legal peril to disallow religiously based discrimination instead of legitimizing it in the state codes of law.
Lastly, these laws will not prevent lawsuits, all it does is shape the augments within them. Forget constitutional arguments- just because there is some state law out there saying someone can legally discriminate does not mean that someone cannot still make a prima facie case that the discrimination was malicious, and thus, actionable as "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress"...which carries those big jury awards that bankrupt businesses that those politicians so earnestly wish to protect.
The only way to prevent the lawsuits is to do what certain pols and satanists suggested (as I pointed out upthread): posting signs telling "Due to religious reasons, we refuse service to ________." While that may actually save the business from lawsuits, as the proponents well know, it won't necessarily save them from public opprobrium, boycotts, and an economic death spiral that will bankrupt them as surely as any lawsuit.
Hobby Lobby might be able to weather a storm like that, but Mom & Pop's Great Cake Shop? Probably not.
* a uniquely American interpretation of Islam that is generally regarded as a heresy by all the other branches.
Vegas, here we come! 
