Republicans... proudly marching into the 1950's

[Aristocatt]

No denying things based on religion or race, but sexual orientation and marital status, which still means nearly everyone.

So, if a doctor hates  Muslims, for example, they can deny an unmarried Muslim man HIV treatment, citing this law. Just say it's about having premarital sex, not his religion, and bam.
Basically, only straight married monogamous people will be protected from discrimination. Everyone else is up for grabs, since we know most people do have premarital sex. And if you are stepping out on a spouse, it opens you up to discrimination action as well.

Let me know if I'm getting this wrong, but that is how it appears.

P.s. hillary haters please tell me again how she would have been equally bad??

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage."  --FADA

I'm not sure.  I'm also not a legal scholar!
But, it seems pretty undeniable that the bill eschews the rights that the LGBT community, and I, would argue they have.  
That last part "that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage" sounds to me like you are right about denying health care for HIV that is transmitted outside of a heterosexual marriage./Other similar circumstances