I don't get these "religious freedom" bills

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/north-carolina%E2%80%99s-terrible-anti-lgbt-law-even-worse-we-thought
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/08/civil-rights-groups-mobilize-against-mississippis-religious-freedom-law/82804786/

I am not an expert in the law, but when you open a business, I think there is the assumption that you will encounter undesirable/offensive patrons now and then. But most enterprises will still accept their money, because the bottom line is often more important than principle. Sure, if people are blatantly violating your code of conduct or basic decency, you can refuse the right to serve (and call the authorities on them). But $1 from Jack or Jill or Ahmed should be accepted equally, otherwise you are biased.

For equal opportunity employment, there are federal laws and it's pretty clear. If Jack is qualified to do the job, and you hire him, then you must give equal consideration if Jill (or a person with some sort of differentiating feature like age, sexual orientation, disability, etc.) has equivalent qualifications. And you can't retaliate against workers who complain about prejudicial treatment.

For a private business, I'm less clear. But if these MS and NC style laws spread, it sets a dangerous precedent. I know we give special protections for religion, and Christianity is the dominant faith in the US, but we all are entitled to equal protection under the law, even those without a faith. Anyone can come up with some sort of reason to refuse service to a patron because they disagree with some element of their behavior/persona (or are "offended" by it). But I'm sorry, in the US we have the right to offend, just not harm. You are guaranteed to life and liberty (tell that to poor urban black youth though), but not an offense free life.

The MS law narrowly states (according to USA Today): "The denial of certain services to the LGBT community based on any of three religious beliefs -- that marriage is between a man and a woman, that sex is proper only within such a marriage, and that people are male or female based on their genetics and anatomy at birth."

So are those the only considerations that matter? Why not expand it to Jews, who after all, rejected Jesus' teachings and condemned him? Would America be OK with that? Plenty of heterosexual (and Christian) couples engage in sodomy/anal sex. Do you need a questionnaire to screen those folks out of your establishment too? Would such a business be sustainable?

What if I am a Satanist and I am offended by Christians, so I refuse to serve and hire them? Supporters of the law have to be OK with that, right? Selective beliefs/outrage always tick me off; so John Q Baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding (sinful abomination), but he is OK to sell pastries to a clearly obese person (gluttony, deadly sin)? And just because he refused to bake that wedding cake, did he stop those 2 men from getting hitched? Likely not. So what was the point, that he can go home with a clear conscience? Well he can tell St. Peter, and also admit that he refused to act with compassion and love that day. If Mr. Baker cares so much, why not take some time to talk to the gay couple and use your wits/morals to convince them to change their ways? Nope, it's just easier/lazier to discriminate. And even that is flawed - I am sure some gay customers slip through the cracks and still get service. So you let down your god! How can you live with yourself?

I am not too concerned about these laws because I think they are poorly thought out and destined to be struck down by a higher ruling. It's probably hasty backlash against the recent SCOTUS rulings about gay marriage, gay adoption, employer covered contraception, etc. Religious conservatives feel like their belief system (and "traditional American values") are under attack, yet I bet most of them never even encounter a gay couple in their daily affairs, so is their life so much worse now? Even if I was against Obamacare, I would have to admit that I don't feel its effects at all in my daily life, so I can't claim any harm, apart from "feeling offended."

Grow up. Sometime you don't get your way, and sometime you don't approve of what others are doing. That is compromise and living in a mixed society, and Christians are still the majority faith with the most sociopolitical power. We should strive to protect everyone's freedoms as much as possible, but not at the expense of discriminating another group. Because then who gets to decide who wins and loses in each case? I thought conservatives were opposed to the gov't picking winners and losers? Just another display of hypocrisy. I don't even know why I wasted 30 min of my life writing about this issue. It's so ludicrous it's almost comical.

How TV mega "churches" are raking in tax-free profits and DC doesn't seem to care

http://www.npr.org/2014/04/01/282496855/can-a-television-network-be-a-church-the-irs-says-yes

This is not an old story (remember the Jim and Tammy Baker?), but the scale has grown (money and gov't incompetence). Televangelists now have nearly billion-dollar empires, that are conveniently mostly tax-free as a "religious nonprofit". They also enjoy stronger privacy status (financial and otherwise). Even the huge luxury compounds that these orgs own don't have to pay property tax because they are classified as parsonages (had to wiki this one: a church-owned abode for the clergy to live in).

Since 2009, the IRS can no longer audit churches without the approval of a top official at Treasury (and who can be bothered to sign off for that?). Supposedly an org must meet the IRS' 14-point checklist to be called a church, but few of these "TV ministries" do. Too bad no one is checking but folks like NPR apparently.

And what do these churches do with their huge rakes? Private jets, Bentleys, publishing subsidiaries, and generally Wall St. level compensation for the preachers.  They claim that they route congregation donations to worthy causes, but an investigation of TX-based Daystar Ministries revealed that they only gave 5% of revenue to charity (they claimed it was 30%). In comparison the secular Red Cross is >90% and Catholic Charities USA is 75%. But hey, Daystar sponsored a Christian NASCAR team to the tune of $600K. And remember that the congregation is getting tax breaks as well.

The Senate Finance Cmte. led by C Grassley (R) investigated 6 mega-churches recently. They found evidence of abuse, but didn't take action and more or less dropped the issue (church leaders were threatening to sue over religious persecution). They recommended "self regulation" and Grassley hopes that the problem will "cure itself". I guess there is a lot of gov't paranoia/precedent about interfering in religious matters. Maybe DC has no right to decide what a preacher gets paid, but if the gov't can legally make us fight in a war, spy on us, seize our property, and sentence us to death, I think they can revisit whether they need to at least tax and monitor religious orgs a little more (even tightening up how they define them would make a big impact).