Re: Here's what I don't get . . . .
I'm not judging the merits of the law or its meaning based on the views of its supporters. Frankly, I think IRFRA is largely irrelevant in terms of its actual use in court. But what the state of Indiana has found out the hard way, it doesn't really matter all that much whether the law will be of much significance in terms of people using it in court. What does matter is the message that has been sent.
And you hypothetical is proves my point. If am the florist asked to provide flowers to an arranged marriage of a 16yo girl, I would politely refuse. I would also explain why I could not, in good conscience, provide flowers for something that I believe is wrong--regardless of the religion of the participants. I would hope that the father (or whoever is ordering the flowers) would understand, but I would not care about the legal consequences of my actions if did not.
We all have our own sense of morality, and right and wrong, including how far we are willing to stray from our beliefs when we are faced with a choice between what we believe is right and what we believe is wrong. At the same time, however, we also must be willing to accept the consequences when the law disagrees with the line that we draw for ourselves. My conscience (including the need to follow the law, as society has determined) dictates my own behavior, but the law dictates if I am to be punished for that behavior.