No, I didn't say it was a crime, just that the current interpretation of it 1) couldn't have been anticipated by the supporters in 1993, and 2) what Chuck thought in 1993 is completely and utterly irrelevant to anything in 2015.The RFRA was intended to preserve the religious freedom of the Native Americans. Are you saying that it's a crime that it's being applied to non-Native American religions now?
On a trip to Tibet a couple years before, they explain, they had been quite fascinated with the way many houses there feature phallus-shaped forms in various parts of their design. The two tell Jones that as a gay couple, they like this phallus motif very much and want him to use it throughout the house he does for them. They confide that they plan to have some very sensuous all-male parties in their new house, and they make clear they want some of its design details to depict phalluses quite graphically, because they think that will lend to the erotic ambiance they want to create.
Not only does all this offend Jones's aesthetic and artistic sensibilities, but he is also a devout, fundamentalist Christian. As such, he believes homosexuality is immoral and an abomination that should be discouraged, rather than celebrated--let alone celebrated in his designs. He does not want these clients. Can he refuse them because they are homosexuals without violating his state's law, if it prohibits public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of sexual preference, and defines "public accommodation" to include any "business"?