While I appreciate the reference to the strawman fallacy, and the argument does move into the strawman area, there is still a valid question that Mr. Otten fails to address. The bill does allow for me to deny service based on my religious beliefs which will open the door to all sorts of blatant bigotry. If you look at the bill, section 3 makes discrimination acceptable.
Section 3. No person or any personal business may be required to provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, or celebration of any marriage, or treat any marriage as valid for any purpose if such action would cause any such person or personal business to violate the person's sincerely held religious beliefs.Despite calling out the other person's strawman with his own strawman. This just goes to show the thinking pattern of this Senator. I do not think that the Supreme Court of the United States radical and activist judges. The other person was correct is saying that I could hold a deeply-held biblical belief that Christians should not be served in my store since I am Hindu or Muslim. If that happened, I am sure Ernie Otten and his Tea Party would be up in arms. Lines like, "It’s become a way for the extremists on the left to push their radical agenda of intolerance of someone else's conscience." makes the intentions clear: It is okay for me to push my views on someone, but not okay for them to have an extreme opposing view.