Red herring argument. No one is suggesting religious rights are absolute.It is obviously wrong. No proof needed. It was designed to protect religious rights of people from infringement. Every other similar law and the federal law all do the same thing.Been done over and over. The Hobby Lobby case was exactly the kind of case this bill was designed for.That's a laugh.
Name one.
When you can't win you deflect or ask childish questions. You've seriously lost this debate because you dont understand the law.
My point has been that this law was designed to give individuals a religious license to discriminate.
No one has proven that wrong.
Please show me all those cases of gays or anyone discriminated against legally under existing laws in 25 states.
Religious rights CAN be infringed. You don't see much human sacrifice around do you? You don't see too much polygamy around do you? You don't see much legalized segregation around do you?