First let me say that I'm not arguing this is an issue. IT IS! I agree a 100%. My point is more that it is foolish for Republicans to pass legislation that is CLEARLY unconstitutional.
Firstly and most importantly, the Supreme Court has ruled against discrimination based on orientation, so any legislation that allows it will be found unconstitutional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States#State_Supreme_Court_Decisions
The letter of the legislation is important, but even more so is how it is interpreted by the supreme court.
The Federal Civil Rights Act, for instance, does not mention homosexuals, but courts have ruled that homosexual are protect from discrimination in that law, so that legislation does in fact protect them.
You also have to look at the implication of certain rulings. If, for instance, it is ruled that homosexuals can't be denied the right to marry, based on their orientation, or the right to be employed, or the right to adopt, then the implication of that is that they are likewise entitled to not be discriminating against in other instances as well.
I admit that the language of the American legislation is not as awesome as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which DOES include orientation in their language, but the interpretations of their legislation does protect them as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court.
It would be nice to get such legislation in writing of course. However, the new legislation is essentially powerless. A Christian can't, for instance, refuse to sell cigarettes to homosexuals because homosexuality is against our religion, because then you would also have to refuse to sell to to smokers as well, as THAT is against their religion, and they would also have to refuse service to Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and people of other faiths, because those faiths are opposed to their religion, at which point the law becomes overtly to discriminate against people based on religion, which IS overtly protect by federal legislation, and therefore makes the new legislation unconstitutional.
Basically, the legislation lets your refuse work or service if it means breaking your faith, so if in the process of baking a cake for a homosexual couple, you, for some inexplicable reason, have to perform oral sex on a member of the same sex, THEN you can refuse service. If you are asked to lie as part of your job, THEN you can refuse service; is you are required to commit adultery, or murder somebody, THEN you can refuse to to the work, because THOSE actions will put you in a position where you are committing an ACT opposed to your faith.
Making breakfast for somebody because their gay does not force you to do anything against your religion any more than making breakfast for an adulterer or a liar does, therefore you can' refuse any of them service based on your religion.
The only place where this may be applicable really in is in church, where a priest or minister can refuse to perform a wedding ceremony for a gay couple, in which case that is perfectly reasonable.
That said, I think those refusing to serve gay people are fucking hypocritical morons who have a special place in hell reserved for them and I think its great that they all seem to be going out of business FAST after being boycotted. That is one instance where capitalism seems to work well.
Respectfully.