Can I just comment, against my better judgment, that there has never been any constitutional restriction on the rights of private entities to discriminate. They're assholes, sure. And, if it were constitutional, maybe we'd want to pass legislation restricting that right (in some cases, we have, when it falls within the Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce, which as it turns out is almost everything).
There isn't an explicitly protected right to discriminate, but there is also no fundamental right recognized by the constitution for everyone to be free from discrimination. The constitution's primary goal was to create a government and restrict the government's ability to infringe on individual liberties. All these arguments that it's unconstitutional to allow private citizens or businesses to discriminate are flawed in the significant respect that that would run directly contrary to constitutional aims of holding back the government's ability to interfere with the personal decisions of individuals.
In case I'm being misinterpreted here, I'll say that I am completely supportive of the idea that anyone should be able to live the life they want. But I also recognize that I am allowed to feel that way because the government isn't allowed to to tell me how to feel. That protection is only afforded to anyone if it extends to everyone. Private entities should be allowed to discriminate.
Edit: If you're thinking about de-segregation and the fact that private business owners are not allowed to turn blacks away based on the color of their skin, make sure you first research the constitutional basis for the desegregation laws. They were only permissible because they were a necessary remedy to segregation that resulted from *direct, affirmative legislation by state governments mandating segregation in violation. Because the so-called "jim crowe" laws were violations of the 14th amendment, and the segregation they created was sustained long after the laws were stricken from the books, the Supreme Court held that it was constitutionally permissible to impose laws requiring, among other things, businesses not to discriminate on the basis of race.
If it had not been for the generations-long government-imposed segregation, such an infringement on the rights of private citizens would not have been tolerated.
Gays have not been discriminated against on remotely the same level as blacks, and for only a fraction of the time. Further (not bothering to cite), legislation passed by the state that affirmatively discriminates against LGBTs has been rare and extremely limited in scope compared to the Jim Crowe laws, which justified the exception as it pertains to race.
Lastly, the perception that the broad language of the RFRA could have some kind of "catastrophic consequences" or enable "anyone to do anything for any bullshit, made-up 'religious reason,' is a result of failure to consider that (1) all broad statutes necessarily employ vague language, because overly precise language lends itself to unanticipated misinterpretation while affording courts little room to enforce the law in the manner that the legislature intended; and (2) legislatures rely on the courts to construct reasonable interpretations of the statutes, which they will likely do, since most challenges to the RFRA will be on constitutional grounds and thus interpreted by federal courts, not State courts.
There. I've said all I think, and all I think I know about the issue. RIP my inbox.
tldr;(1) Private business owners can't discriminate against black people solely because they're black, but race is a very special exception born out of our racist history. LGBTs are like everyone else. Not special. Not free from discrimination by private businesses.**
(2) The RFRA is not as bad as it seems, because it will mostly be interpreted reasonably, by reasonable judges.
Please reconsider your outrage that state governments are trying to protect the individual rights of citizens to feel however they want. That is a very noble goal.