For example, while it's certainly true that the statue in Indiana broadened the scope from the SCOTUS decision in Hobby Lobby via not utilizing a closely held threshold in applying the RFRA, that also means that federal case law can stand in direct opposition to such an expansion.

What that means, as some analysts have tried to point out, is that if a defendant attempted to use the non-amended RFRA in Indiana to discriminate against a homosexual customer, the federal courts would all but certainly rule that such a defense is void. If the business is not a closely held privately operated business, it would not meet the threshold that was quite thoroughly detailed in the SCOTUS ruling.

This, I think, was part of the confusion in the first place. A state broadening a legal principle beyond the scope of what was ruled upon in a federal ruling doesn't mean that the state statute trumps the federal ruling. I think a lot of people made the opposite conclusion, primarily because of the social issue in play.

If company X was not a closely held private business, which can demonstrate a history of deeply held religious beliefs, as the SCOTUS specifically noted in its ruling, then company X simply would not meet the threshold laid out by the courts.

Also, there's some word play going on here that is highly misleading. For example...

A Catholic priest living in the District of Columbia can, without question, use the federal RFRA in a pre-trial motion as an affirmative defense against a Satanist who was turned away by the priest in preforming a marriage. The federal RFRA certainly provides that protection to that individual in that civil action.

Jenny Pizer seems to be playing fast and loose with the truth here, and in some shocking ways I might add.

The law in Indiana can be used to discriminate against individuals in housing, employment and government employment due to religion?

That is, without question or debate, 100% false, period.

Federal law is perfectly clear on this matter and Ms. Pizer simply did not tell the truth on this issue. It is, without question, illegal to deny housing because of someone's religion, period. What a statue in Indiana states is entirely irrelevant because Indiana, obviously, can not pass some statute that trumps federal law.

It is illegal to turn away a Muslim from renting an apartment in all 50 states and all US territories, period. It is illegal for a company to not hire a Christian because they are a Christian, period.

No statue passed in Indiana can change that either, period.