is that, in future situations, people caught discriminating against LGBT persons in protected areas by way of citing their religious beliefs, could try to wiggle out of complaints against them by spuriously accusing government officials of being "hostile" to their religious beliefs and it's not entirely clear to me how an official handling such a complaint could prove they weren't being "hostile". Of course, to me, the religious objections of business owners to serving LGBT persons should be immaterial in what is supposed to be our secular-based society, but we have too many politicians whom have opened the door to religious beliefs, particularly Christianity (or some interpretations thereof) having outsized influence on public policies despite having (or supposed to be having) a defined "wall" between Church and State. Religion in our society is, paradoxically, much better protected than LGBT persons are and, ironically, IS an actual "choice" as opposed to being LGBT, which isn't.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
