I have a friend named Bob, who I have diaried about before.
Bob is a great guy, very nice, open, and tolerant.
As a black man, Bob has also experienced first hand some very insulting and degrading discrimination.
But Bob is also a sincere Christian and holds two doctorates of Divinity.
Which means, Bob supports the Indiana "Religious Freedom" law; not because he hates gays, but because he sincerely believes homosexuality is a sin and religious people should have the right to excuse themselves from participation in an activity they believe is morally wrong such as a gay wedding.
Because I respect the hell out of Bob, I listened to his argument and his reasons quietly and let him present them without push back. As he is very intelligent, he presented them logically and soundly and when he was finished, I understood his point.
The crux of Bob's argument was this: Christians believe in God and that Jesus is the Son of God, who died for our sins. As such, he cannot speak to other religions, but for him, the Bible is not just a life guide or some writings of 2,000 years ago, it is the Word of God. He may not understand it, he may have difficulty following it, but he must - as best he can as a human being - respect it as Holy and therefore, it trumps everything else he might find important.
As such, the Christian believes homosexuality to be sinful. To the Christian, gay marriage is not recognized in the eyes of God and therefore is a relationship that is being entered into sinfully. Although Bob will not attempt to reverse the legalization of gay marriage, or condemn any Christian who willingly participates in one, equally, as a Christian, he can not participate.
Non-believers may not like the fact that to Christians, this is a real and important issue, but that does not give them the right to force the Christian to perform an activity they find religiously offensive. Past Christians died refusing to perform acts that they considered blasphemous. Today's Christians are only asking for the right to say "I would rather not."
In his view, that is all the Indiana law is attempting to allow.
My reply to Bob follows.