Which is how you get new bills in the state legislatures proposing to make discrimination legal, so long as it's for reasons. The painstakingly generic South Dakota version, SB67:
No person or any personal business may be required to provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, or celebration of any marriage, or treat any marriage as valid for any purpose if such action would cause any such person or personal business to violate the person’s sincerely held religious beliefs.In South Dakota, then, whether or not your marriage was "valid" would be entirely up to whoever you were talking to at the time. Do they still believe that mixed-race marriages are improper? Then they get to discriminate against you. Are you a childless couple? Sorry, we don't serve non-breeders here. Are you Muslim or Jewish? Get the hell out.
All of this is to prevent the possibility of some florist somewhere having to sell flowers for a same-sex wedding, which as we know is the nightmare scenario of all good American florists everywhere. Or something.
The Kansas version makes the type of allowable discrimination more specific, declaring it to be based on your personal religious beliefs with regards to "sex or gender," and lists some of the various ways Kansas citizens would be allowed to express their discrimination:
Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement;Both of these are similar to the effort underway (again) in Arizona. The people who still want to discriminate against gay Americans clearly see the writing on the wall, at least on the federal level, and are scrambling for alternate theories as to why they should still be allowed to do it.