As useful background - and to dispel the idiocy that Republicans are only fighting for the rights of oppressed wedding cake bakers - note that
Louisiana Republicans are proposing to pass a law that would not only allow businesses to refuse to serve same sex couples, but also would allow such businesses to deny benefits to same-sex married employees and prohibit them from losing any state contracts or tax benefits. Republican governor Bobby
Jindal pretended to be agnostic as to whether he would sign such a bill into law.
Overall, I have found the press to be better-than-usual in covering these RFRAs and related efforts to legalize discrimination against homosexuals. However, it seems that Republican politicians are crudely mastering the technique of implausibly denying any discriminatory purpose while simultaneously signaling their approval of such discrimination precisely with such clumsy denials. Likewise, apt analogies to Jim Crow and Christian justified racism are easily swatted away with an ignorant wave of the hand, even by supposedly "thoughtful" Christian writers.
So, it seems to me that if the press wants to shed light on these issues, it should start asking the "Sharia law conspiracy" Republicans whether their proposed RFRAs would work in a Muslim hypothetical. Consider:
1. Would it be permissible for a Muslim business owner (including a wedding photographer and the like) to refuse to serve any female customer who was not properly wearing a veil?
2. Would it be permissible for a Muslim business owner to deny spousal and family benefits to any Christian couple not married in accordance with Sharia law?
3. Should a Muslim business (that receives state contracts and tax credits) be allowed to discriminate against U.S. military members if an admittedly appropriate religious authority issued a peaceful fatwa to such effect?
Those questions are the opposite of snarky. A significant problem with the public debate is that it accepts the validity of Christian norms and beliefs as plainly worthy of not just respect, but deference. But Republicans' notion of religious freedom as a sword, not just a shield, obviously would have to apply across the board. I could be wrong, but I don't believe that Republican politicians could answer the above affirmatively merely because consistency would require it. So, asking these direct questions (or something like them) is vital to properly explaining the ramifications of the Republican position and, likely, the hypocrisy of their position. If I am wrong, and Republicans want to argue in favor of the above . . . well then at least we would have an honest discussion.