In response to dreighver's comment:
You are free to practice your religion however you wish. It's protected, trust me. If you'd like to worship, then worship. If you'd like to pray, then pray. But don't discriminate against others based on the beliefs you hold. To say this bill is about religious freedom is disingenous, in my opinion.
I ask you all, would you have an issue with a business refusing service to a divorced woman, or to a black individual?
In our sacred Constitution, we have provisions for the separation of religion and state. Now, look, I get it -- a private business is not a part of the state. However, in a decent society, people should be treated equally and fairly, regardless of personally held beliefs. I value the rights of society as a whole over the rights of a particular bigot. And yes, I say 'bigot', and I mean 'bigot'. Regardless of what the Bible says, or any other religious (or non-religious) text for that matter, discrimination against a certain group of people is bigotry. It doesn't matter where the belief originates from. But I digress.
Let's suppose that my religion states that I can only drive an automobile at 100 MPH. Now this is a rather absurd condition, I understand, but I don't see it as any more outrageous than stating that homosexuality is morally wrong. Anyhow, so let's suppose that my religion states that I can only drive 100 MPH. This belief is held dearly close to my heart, and after all, it is MY religious RIGHT to practice said religion how I wish, correct? Should I therefore be allowed to drive 100 MPH at all times? Of course not! That'd be absurd, as it'd endanger countless numbers of people.
See where I'm going here...? All rights have some limitations on them, even speech and expression. You cannot yell "fire" in a movie theater, as this purports that there's a clear and present danger. But, but but...! What if my religion requires that I yell "fire" in a crowded theater?! Sorry, you can't do it, and that makes perfect sense to most sane individuals.
Point is, all rights are limited in some sense. When your right begins to infringe on the rights of others', then a breaking point is met. Very sensibly, to this point, our political system has erred on the side of the majority, as opposed to the individual.
RE: seawolf -- overall, that sums up my feelings on the topic. At some point, we'll have to let this topic go. I don't think I can (or will) elaborate any further on my thoughts, as there's little more to be said. It comes down to a fundamental disagreement on the liberty of the individual vs. the liberty of the majority. We all have our own personal feelings and beliefs, and that's perfectly fine -- wonderful, in fact! At some point, though, we'll have to agree to disagree.
+1. Very well put.
But it shouldn't have to be neccesary to make an obvious example like that. The photographer and the gay couple is quite enough IMO. First off, I don't understand how taking photos at a gay marriage corrupts your own religious practices - I understand that it feels uncomfortable for the photographer, but he is not "aiding" in the marriage, he does not sanction it, he is not a guest, he doesn't participate, it has absolutely no implications on how he worships. None. He takes pictures for a living, has probably taken pictures at a lot of weddings, go take some pictures.
Denying his services to the couple has however civil rights and free market implications for the gay couple. In a free market, buyers choose which goods and services they want to purchase, balancing price and perception of quality. Could be that this particular photographer is either the cheapest or the best or some combination hereof that is appealing to the couple. They would be excluded from that service based on a completely individual, random and subjective opinion of the photographer. And on top of that they have been clearly discriminated against based on their sexual orientation.
Those in favor of the law argue that the couple could go elsewhere. Well, maybe they could, maybe not. At the very least it could potentially drive up prices for gay couples, or ultimately cut them off from having their picture taken, if all photographers in the area were bigots.
And though I in general don't like jumping from laws that have a specific goal to extrapolate the worst case scenario from it, it just seems reasonable to ask those of you in favor of the law, where the line should be drawn - if at all? How far should religious practices go before you say it becomes too imposing on others?