Who has rights anyway?

Frankly I don’t understand the flap over the Indiana religious freedom law. Following is a succinct example of what we are talking about. 

Consider this case from Washington state.

A florist, citing her relationship with Jesus Christ, refused to sell flowers for a gay couple’s wedding. A court recently ruled, even when weighing her religious convictions, that she violated local nondiscrimination laws. News reports say she turned down a settlement offer and continues to appeal her case.
The florist declined to arrange the flowers, and so in some sense this confirms the fears of religious freedom law opponents that a door has been opened to discrimination. But she lost in court, and so this backs the supporters who say RFRA doesn’t usurp local nondiscrimination laws.  USA Today 3-30-15 

So, exactly who has rights, just some people or everyone? Is it a serious concern that business owners will forego doing business with select people? And if they do, are there not far more alternatives to a single business? And if they do, have they no rights to do so (apparently not based on the above case and other similar cases)?

How many business owners are actually going to refuse to provide goods and services to individuals based on their sexual orientation? Is this a wide-spread problem now? Would you want to give your business to someone who would rather discriminate against you legally or otherwise? 

How did this get to be a national politically correct issue in the first place? Hey, if some person based on religious beliefs or just outright narrow mindedness wants to lose business to a competitor who are they hurting? 

It seems to me our society enjoys blowing everything out of proportion for no significant reason. 

Let’s have some discussion?