In theory, religious freedom extends to the freedom of non-belief, and in-fact, anti-belief is why freedom of religion was crafted into our bill of rights, that is, that you could not have a religion forced upon you by the state, there is no caveat that you must have an alternative religion to the one pushed on you for protection.

That said, without fully reading the Indiana law, and not being an atty, I couldn't tell you for sure, other than I think you would have the fair argument, that if you owned a bakery, you could refuse to bake a cake for a christian wedding, so long as that cake somehow infringed on your beliefs (I dont think simply a cake for a christian wedding would meet that criteria, but a cake with a cross or the word God on it might.)

But I will say here, what I have said elsewhere: this is all horseshit. We shouldn't be further dividing ourselves, we should be looking to unite our country to build a better future. I am a church going, saved, Christian, and I would bake the damn cake for a gay wedding - you know why? Because before you get to ANY scripture that *might call homosexuality a sin, LONG before you get to any such scripture, you pass a TON of scripture that says you should love, help, and extend your hand to EVERYONE, including non-believers and those you believe are living in sin, so that they might know the love of God. That also doesn't mean I need to bake a cake and then try to convince them to not be gay when they pick it up so that they won't be condemned to hell (which BTW I don't subscribe to the belief that just being gay sends you to hell) - as a "good" Christian all I should be doing is baking that damn cake, and treating them and every other customer with love, so that maybe just one customer would think about how, because of my beliefs, I loved them in-spite of xyz.

Sorry for the digression.

I think we may see this law challenged on MANY grounds. People taking a pig to a muslim butcher. A skinhead going to a jewish bakery. Etc. I think people will want to test both sides of this law. I think there are certain cases where you shouldnt be forced to provide a service if it directly conflicts with your belief system (religious or otherwise) but I think that list is narrow and hard to quantify in a law without overstepping.