I thought "religious freedom" laws made it so the employer could legally refuse to hire, say, homosexuals. That probably won't pose a risk to Amazon, the hiring company.

Are you thinking the second order effects would come into play, like spouses not being able to find work? Or am I wrong about the definition of rf laws?

They don't just affect employers, they also affect lots of service providers. As a result, people who would be likely to be subject to discrimination under those laws (whether currently living in the area or not) may view living and working in the affected areas as less attractive, making hiring more difficult for employers in the affected areas.

This may, of course, be somewhat offset by attracting people supportive of the discrimination thus enabled, making it easier to hire those people.

I'm not the OP but I assume "laws that would make hiring difficult" include laws that would shock the conscience of the sort of people you would want to hire if you were Amazon, not to mention the existing employees. Bathroom laws, etc.

Imagine if a state had a law making it legal to discriminate against women. You might argue that would give the hiring company valuable hiring and firing flexibility. But it's probably obvious that, aside from the ethical issue, it would be bad for business to seek such jurisdictions out. Skilled workers (both women and men) wouldn't want to work there, and the PR impact would be negative.

Many corporations have been extremely vocal in their opposition to these laws in lobbying. They're bad for business because they make hiring harder, and it's bad PR.

Georgia has some of, if not the most, employer-friendly right-to-work laws in the country.

you can essentially hire and fire anyone you like for no cause with no notice.

Isn’t that something Georgia should be proud of! /s

I’ve never understood why people in those sorts of places are so excited about such regressive laws.