>>Someone saying they won't serve a person or hire a person for a job because the person is gay is no different than doing it because they're black
>>
>>I agree with you. However, that is not what Indiana's "Religious Freedom" law was all about. Many Christians (and I really wouldn't know about that personally since I am Jewish) believe that marriage is between a man and a woman because that is what their religion teaches them. The law doesn't that they do not have to serve a gay person who, say, walks into their restaurant.
>
>Actually that's exactly what the law said - until people started complaining and businesses threatened to leave the state because of it....which resulted in the governor backpeddling real quick and the law got changed.
>
>>That behavior is still, by definition, discrimination. It does, however, protect them from having to actively participate (by having to cater) in a (religious) event that they believe is sinful.
>
>It's still legal to get fired from your job for being gay - and I bet we agree that is discrimination. You'll find that most republicans (or maybe I should say the elected and running-for-office republicans) are ok with this and their core favors this type of discrimination. Sort of brings me back to my original point - which is that they seem out-of-touch with the way the real world is today.
>
>>You really shouldn't use such a broad brush...

We have a similar thing here with gay marriages. Lots of right wing politicians come out (LOL) against it.
I don't personally don't know anyone who has a problem with it.