The very phrase “religious freedom” is as off-putting as “free speech zone”. The moment you add a condition to freedom, you’re limiting freedom; not expanding it. When you say you’re creating zones where you can have free speech, the implication is you’re not respecting free speech elsewhere. It’s the same with religious freedom. Can I just have straight-up unconditional freedom, please?
It’s not because I love other men that the Indiana RFRA offends me. It’s because I love freedom. Might someone at some point try to use the act to defend themselves from litigation based on anti-LGBT discrimination? Probably, and good for them. I don’t like those people but I don’t need the government to protect me from them. All I ask is that governments don’t discriminate by respecting their rights in a manner that they won’t extend to me. The problem isn’t the cases when it will work to defend freedoms. The problem is the cases when it won’t, and those will be many.