If you are seriously going to get offended over people who think differently than you do you should probably never leave your house or use the internet. And potentially consider blacking out your windows.

You said that nobody was affected. Is offense not an effect, or are you saying that those who would be offended are somehow of a devalued type of humanity whose opinions don't matter? It really kind of looks like the latter.

Let me get this straight, a gay person in a small conservative town can potentially find themselves unable to go to the grocery store, eat at restaurants, or have pictures taken at their wedding and they aren't second class citizens

Nope. "Straight" here in my eyes would be, a gay person in a small conservative town finds themselves served at the Pizzeria (as this infamous Pizzeria owner explicitly says he would do) able to buy groceries (which I've never seen any example of anyone legitimately trying to deny someone else over sexual orientation, nor any popular position saying they'd be okay with it, nor anything to lead me to the conclusion that it's conceivable to make this equivocation with a straight face) and get married.

But when they get married they might have to hire out-of-towners for some of their services. I believe that to be the only documented potential negative consequence of this law, and yes, I believe that a minor logistical hiccup in wedding planning doesn't make you a second-class citizen.

Let me slow down a little though... do you recognize the difference between not wanting to participate in a wedding--an explicit, literal celebration of a relationship--and not wanting to sell someone groceries, which has nothing to do with their relationship? (Unless they're buying lube or something, I guess... but even then you can buy lube regardless of what relationship you're in.) I think this might be where I feel people are taking this to fantastical logical ends. I've never heard a religious adherent try to say with a straight face that it's wrong for gays to eat, or for them to drive cars. (I guess I've heard some Muslims take a position that it's wrong for them to be alive, but I'm pretty sure killing people would stay illegal and thus falls outside of the scope of consequences of this legislation.)

but if a Christian restaurant owner who feeds hundreds of different people every week has to serve someone who they don't agree with they are second class citizens? That literally makes no sense.

If a Christian restaurant owner who feeds hundreds of people every week, including gays in an absolutely non-discriminatory way (as this Indiana pizzeria has explicitly said they would do), is told that he has to shut down his business and/or die, according to the death threats he's received (either of which would lead to him feeding far fewer people, including still not catering to gay weddings) because he won't cater a gay wedding because he's morally opposed to it, then you're effectively saying that Christians with a moral opposition to this are in a class that can never operate a business that could conceivably be asked to participate in a wedding celebration including restaurants, decorators, florists, musicians--a very large range of operations--because allowing them to turn down certain business (that odds are, they'll very rarely or maybe never encounter) for moral reasons would be discriminatory--but that this barring them, for life, from a broad class of occupations in turn is not discriminatory to them for their moral position? It doesn't add up to me how this wouldn't be turning them effectively into second-class citizens.