The south started to change after the civil war, so governments passed Jim Crow laws to force businesses to discriminate, and the Supreme Court of the United States upheld these separate-but-equal laws over opposition from a private business that just wanted to make money.
Again, this simply isn't anywhere near the same thing. Gay rights activists are ginning up hysteria over this law and the media (and those who read the media without a legal education or common sense) are blindly following along. If you actually read the law, it doesn't give anyone license to discriminate - it simply codifies the "compelling interest" balancing test that is already federal and common law. It also clarifies that freedom of religion applies to business owners whether owned as a sole prop, llc, partnership, closely held corporation, etc., just like what was held in Hobby Lobby.
I personally believe that businesses should have the right to refuse service based on religious moral objections. A wedding photographer, should have the right to choose not to photohraph a gay wedding based on religious objections. A printer who is pro-life should have the right to not print fliers for an abortion provider. A pro-life business should not be required to purchase insurance which provides abortion coverage. This just seems like common sense to me. Liberals seem to be the
anti-choice party, unless it's the choice they agree with.
But regardless, as I've said before, Indiana does not even include sexual preference as a protected class under its civil rights laws, so this Indiana RFRA
is completely irrelevant to the gay rights issue.