Religious freedom is nonsense.
It’s generally accepted as given that the reason why early European colonists moved here was to pursue religious freedom, and that therefore it is one of the basic tenets the country is founded on. People in the modern age still use that as reasoning that the religous freedom of one can trump the civil rights of another, at least in America.
Religious freedom in the case of the Puritans, if I recall, was trying to get away from the Anglican Church, who weren’t really fans of them. Freedom of Religion, rather than religious freedom.
Freedom of Religion is the right to practice religion without the state saying “Christianity is illegal.” It is not a bad thing, and I would argue is almost necessary to separate church and state without banning religion outright. Religious Freedom, on the other hand, is usually used as a sanitized way of saying, “God justifies our anti-lgbt bigotry.” This is not OK in this day and age, as we try to move forward in acceptance.
Freedoms cannot be unilaterally applied, as certain freedoms will infringe upon and restrict others. In this case, the freedom to practice a religion that condemns a minority group and considers them sinful is in conflict with said minority’s right to be treated the same as any other person. Whose rights are more important here? I would say the right to be treated fairly and without bias to their minority status.
I disagree with the State’s decision to side with letting religion trump another’s liberty. It is a step backwards in having a tolerant society, and only serves to encourage discrimination.