I had to look up the Elane Photography vs. Willock case to justify my El Reg handle. Seems that NM has a law on its books prohibiting refusing service on the grounds of the customer's sexual orientation. The (lesbian) couple in question were, apparently, politely refused, had no problem finding another photographer at a cheaper price, and happily tied the knot. And then they still sued...
I wonder what would happen if the photographers just said they were fully booked and could not provide the service. I suspect they would be sued anyway. Frankly, I think I mind Indiana laws much less than a law that allows that.
I am not sure where the line is drawn. On the one hand, allowing businesses to refuse regular service to people of colour or Jews or Muslims or LGBT is out of the question in this day and age. On the other hand, somehow I don't see a Jew suing a Christian butcher for not providing kosher meat - that would not be grounds for a religious discrimination accusations, would it? And I have a bit of a trouble trying to distinguish between a steak going through a particular process and a wedding cake baked in a particular shape or form. A kosher steak would be a bigger "burden" practically, but where is the line? The "burden" in the law is not about practicalities, anyway, and there is nothing in the Christian religion that specifically prohibits kosher food, is there? And I can see how a devout Christian might consider providing a traditional cake for a non-traditional wedding as actively participating in a rite that is inconsistent with his beliefs. Point is, should this - and kosher food, too - be considered a specialized service and should the rules be a bit different?
The "we don't like your attitude so we won't do business with you" position of Apple et al. seems a reasonable approach (compared to "let's sue the hell out of all these Christian fundamentalists!" that is so often the alternative nowadays). On the other hand, at least from a distance Indiana does not seem to say "LGBT folks are not welcome here." They say, "do come, but please respect everybody." It's not like an Apple employee on a business trip to Indiana has to fill out a questionnaire on what one does in the bedroom before sitting down for a restaurant meal.
A gedankenexperiment: Let's say Indiana affirmed the right of individual shops and restaurants to not serve kosher food (possibly as a result of a lawsuit), and Jewish-owned businesses, starting with Facebook for visibility, said they would boycott the state. What would the pubic opinion be? [Come to think of it, the public might well misinterpret the measure as a ban on kosher products and all hell might break loose.]