Defending religious freedom – especially when it seems to be thinly-disguised bigotry – can be a politically volatile thing.
After days of heated threats and accusations involving some of the nation's biggest, most powerful corporations and political heavyweights, Republicans in two states hastily re-crafted laws that many viewed as licences to discriminate against homosexuals.
In Indiana, a new version of the contentious Religious Freedom Restoration Act – which would have allowed devout Christian business owners to refuse to serve those who offended their religious views – was sent to the governor and signed into law on Thursday.
"Hoosier hospitality had to be restored," Indiana's Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma said earlier. He also apologized "not for actions taken, but the message received," meaning the firestorm of protest that engulfed Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who had signed the law in a private ceremony last week.
Indiana's revised version specifically makes it a crime to refuse to "offer or provide services, facilities, goods, employment, housing or public accommodation to any member of the public based on sexual orientation or gender identity, in addition to race, colour, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, or military service."
In other words, it provides sweeping protection against the discrimination of gay people – including in the provision of services to those intending to marry others of the same sex, something that hadn't previously existed in Indiana.
Arkansas followed suit. Republican Governor Asa Hutchinson had refused to sign a bill similar to Indiana's, and demanded fixes from the legislature after facing blunt opposition from Wal-Mart, the nation's biggest retailer. The revision removing the most contentious language was sent to him on Thursday, and he signed it.
The abrupt reversal in Indiana followed an outpouring of national protest, led by big firms like Apple as well as gay activists, and rights groups. With the "March Madness" basketball finals to be played this weekend in the Hoosier state, even the National College Athletic Association weighed in, denouncing the "religious freedom" law.
With the Supreme Court due to rule on the legality of same-sex marriage laws this June and the Republican race for the 2016 presidential nomination under way, the issue has re-emerged as one of the nation's most divisive.
When the Indiana law first passed, Republicans were racing each other to praise it. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush, widely seen as the GOP front-runner although he has yet to officially declare for the nomination, first said it was "simply allowing people of faith space to be able to express their beliefs, to have, to be able to be people of conscience."
But in the ensuing furore, Mr. Bush quickly backed off. "Religious freedom is a core value of our country," he said, but added that "we shouldn't discriminate based on sexual orientation." He endorsed the revised Indiana law.
Some Republicans were hanging tough, despite the overwhelming and outspoken opposition of scores of big companies. Texas Senator Ted Cruz, a Tea Party favourite who declared his bid for the White House last month, said "religious liberty is not some fringe view. It is the basis of this country." Stumping in Iowa, he ramped up his attack on Democrats and anyone else who defends same-sex marriage. They "want to persecute anyone who has a good faith religious belief that marriage is ... the union of one man and one woman and ordained as a covenant by God," he said.
Some Christian groups that had pushed hard for the original bills voiced bitter disappointment over the climb down by Republicans in Arkansas and Indiana.
"Among the things that will happen, Christian bakers, florists and photographers would now be forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding or else they would be punished by the government," Advance America, which describes itself as "pro-family, pro-church, pro-private and home school, and pro-tax reform," said in a statement posted on its website.
Meanwhile, as the national debate raged on talk shows, some little guys got caught in the crossfire.
Memories Pizza, a family-owned eatery in pizzeria in tiny Walkertown, Ind., remained shuttered and guarded by police on Thursday after becoming the focal point in a raging internet slanging match over one of the owners' made the candid admission that she wouldn't cater a reception for same-sex nuptials.
"If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say 'no,'" Crystal O'Connor told a TV interviewer. No one could recall a same-sex wedding reception in the town of 2,000, let alone one where pizza was the main dish. While the hypothetical catering request seemed remote, that didn't stop Memories from becoming a target of critics and well-wishers.
Digital vandals quickly attacked its Facebook page and threats poured in. One golf coach called for others to join him in a march to burn down Memories. As the owners went into hiding, supporters nationwide raised more than $100,000 on a crowdfunding site.
Americans remain deeply divided, not only over the legality of same-sex marriage but also whether businesses and individuals can be required to serve those who deeply offend their religious beliefs.
While the Supreme Court is widely expected to sanction same-sex marriage laws it also – in the controversial Hobby Lobby case – has ruled that a closely-held business could not be forced to include contraception in healthcare it provided to employees if that offended the faith of its Christian owners.
A recent AP-GfK poll, found 57 per cent of Americans believe wedding-related businesses should be allowed to refuse services to gay and lesbian couples because of religious convictions.
But when asked more generally, rather than specifically about wedding-related service, far fewer Americans believe a business should be permitted to refuse to serve gays and lesbians. In a May 2014 Public Religion Research Institute survey only 16 per cent of Americans said it should be lawful to refuse service on religious grounds.