This is about 1/55th of the country, not the country as a whole.

A form of the RFRA was already vetoed in Arizona this past February, as a Republican-led legislature passed the bill only for it to get shot down by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer. The bill made similar claims about religious freedom in that it allowed individuals the right to refuse service based on conflicting beliefs with homosexuality. LGBT activists argued the bill unfairly targeted the gay and lesbian population and that the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of religion did not apply.

Umezono said, December 11, 2014, 06:41:54 pm

Spoiler, click to toggle visibilty

What I have gathered:

- it does provide people with innocuous claims like "i dont want to bake a cake for a gay wedding because of my religion" that power. whether or not this is religious discrimination or freedom of religion is hard to tell. i err to the side of discrimination... i would hope that the law will not protect people in restaurants who refuse to serve muslim people just because they are christian. they also cited "a muslim butcher not wanting to work with kosher meat" as a scenario.
- if used as defense in court to refuse medical service, they would have to prove its unreasonable for the government to intervene as it would violate their beliefs. the government could easily prove that it has the right to intervene in that all citizen should recieve medical service - this is gross oversimplification tho. From the source: "First, the individual would have to prove the request violated his or her sincerely held religious beliefs, and the government would then have to prove the law achieved its policy goal through the least restrictive means possible."
- its really broadly worded and gives a lot of power to businesses

This first case is almost harmless enough, until you consider that someone can refuse to sell plan B or birth control pills or shots, because they "cause abortions"* and that is against their religion.
*Hint, hint - Plan B and birth control methods aren't abortives. They prevent fecundation of the egg. Also, birth control pills, shots and patches are used for much more than just preventing pregnancy to happen.

The second case wouldn't help much the person that was denied service, as said person would likely be either dead or permanently crippled by the time government intervention happen...

And it giving a lot of power to businesses is pretty bad. We already saw large business denying to cover birth control because it goes against their "religion freedom".

It is a pretty shitty bill.

how would they know that a patient is gay though? is there a sexual orientation section on IDs?
this bill is stupid and it won't work because a) they're not gonna ask every patient if he's gay or not, and b) even if they did, a patient can simply lie.

What if its an uncoscious person and the paramedics find out its transexual? Do they dump him or her in the side of the road?