Here's one aspect of the RFRA controversy that I have not seen addressed by anyone else. Do such laws, by their very nature, discriminate against atheists? Why is it that people with deeply-held religious convictions are allowed to withhold professional services from people who offend them morally, yet people with deeply-held convictions NOT BASED ON RELIGION do not have a similar legal right to withhold such services?
Allow me to present a hypothetical situation to help clarify my point.
Let's assume that you are an atheist who runs a sign-printing business. In walks a contingent from Yes on Prop 8 asking you to print up signs for their upcoming rally. As a believer in marriage equality, perhaps you would prefer not to comply with their request. Yet, unlike the owner of a sign-printing business who might use his religious convictions to refuse to print up No on 8 signs, you, as an atheist, have no legal recourse to refuse to print up Yes on 8 signs. Is that fair? Is that truly equal treatment before the law?
In other words, why are religious business owners given a special status not accorded to non-religious business owners? Why must a deeply-held personal belief be necessarily tied to religion before it can be legally defended?
Frankly, if I were actually thrust into this position, I would make the signs for the Yes on 8 rally, then donate the money to the No on 8 side. And that's what I think these Christian business people should do when it comes to catering or providing flowers for gay weddings. Accept the commission, then turn around and donate the proceeds to the National Organization for Marriage if they have to in order to assuage their consciences. That seems a better solution than refusing to bake a cake for a decent, law-abiding paying customer.