[don-o]

The law is very vaguely written. If the baker can claim their religious rights have been burdened or might be burdened by providing services to an interracial couple then the law must protect them.

I can take you to 20 establishments withing ten miles where an interracial couple can buy themselves a cake any day of the week. I can find those with absolutely no trouble. Finding one that would refuse to make them a cake, while possible, is highly unlikely.

If I could find one, its existence and business practice places no undue burden on the interracial couple, who can be well served by the 20.

[DoodleDawg]

I can take you to 20 establishments withing ten miles where an interracial couple can buy themselves a cake any day of the week. I can find those with absolutely no trouble. Finding one that would refuse to make them a cake, while possible, is highly unlikely.

And if one did decide that then how could you prevent it under this law?

If I could find one, its existence and business practice places no undue burden on the interracial couple, who can be well served by the 20.

And that was true with the gay couples. Yet the courts decided that one instance was enough and that let to laws to try and correct that. Hence the Indiana law, and the chance for abuse under a law that was passed to try and prevent it.