I think the misconception is that this is an attack on certain groups of people when in fact it is not. It is about a business owner (not necessarily the employees, but the employers) right to run his/her business as he/she sees fit and that should include a protection of HIS religious and moral beliefs. The bakery incident mentioned was not an attack against gays. I'm sure the baker(s) would have had any no problem providing service to customers who were gay, they were just not comfortable with providing a wedding cake since that ACT, not that person, would have been in their mind a violation of their religious beliefs. I see it not unlike a pharmacy I once worked in. The owner was a devout Christian. He did not believe that the morning after pill was something he would have been comfortable dispensing - obviously it would have been against his religious beliefs. So he never carried it in the store, but we would direct patients to other pharmacies that did. Now a pharmacist working in a chain may not be able to turn down a patient without getting fired, but why should an independent business person be penalized for that? Yes, he may be penalized by some people not using his pharmacy, but again I feel it was his right to do as he saw fit. We did not think ill of or were prejudice toward the person who brought that prescription in the pharmacy and certainly would not have turned them away for any other business they might have had, but it was the act of dispensing that medication that we were against - again, NOT THE PERSON.