"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run
Mace Windu: Then our worst fears have been realized. We must move quickly if the Jedi Order is to survive.
He makes these claims on the basis of what he says is "a quick scan" of another summary of other laws and cases provided by another website. Let's look at his Evelyn Wood trained reading skills:
First, if you review his source links it is true that Indiana has not (literally) copied word for word the federal legislation or (literally copied) those passed by other states". In fact NO STATE is a literal copy of each other or the federal RFRA. Texas is worded a little differently than New Mexico, New Mexico a little differently from Indiana, and Indiana a little differently than South Carolina. BUT all RFRA states and the federal RFRA convey a(n) (inadequate) protection the same religious protection, and the same legal requirements of a "compelling State interest", which is what the federal law requires.
So while Mr. Anderson anguishes over "the lack of any restrictive language" and in the failure of Indiana law to define "religion" (which he says invites a broad meaning) he is oblivious to the fact that other states don't define "religion" and most do not HAVE a clause that bothers to restrict the meaning of "religious exercise". But for three or four other States, almost everyone else either leaves meanings wide open to expansive readings OR vaguely say that the terms should mean whatever their particular State Constitution must mean by "the exercise of religion" and the US Constitution (see, for example Arkansas, Oklahoma, etc.). In fact 11 States of the 31 states with RFRA like protections in case law just leave it up to their own particular court case law history to figure it out. HOW much more open to expansive meaning can one get?
Finally, his third complaint is that "any action...may fall under the 'exercise of religion' (and) may or not be compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.' In other words, even if the belief is at the fringe of what a religion may or may not hold true, it falls under this definition of exercising one’s religion."
But contrary to his complaint, the few states that do explicitly define religious exercise do so very much like Indiana. For example:
Indiana: Section 5, which reads: “As used in this chapter, ‘exercise of religion’ includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” (Emphasis added.)
Arizona: "Exercise of religion" means the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief"
New Mexico: "A. "free exercise of religion" means an act or a refusal to act that is substantially motivated by religious belief whether or not the religious exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief;..."
Texas: "(a) In this chapter: (1) "Free exercise of religion" means an act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by sincere religious belief. In determining whether an act or refusal to act is substantially motivated by sincere religious belief under this chapter, it is not necessary to determine that
the act or refusal to act is motivated by a central part or central requirement of the person's sincere religious belief."
While I would welcome a law that truly defends religious (and other) liberties from oppression by "anti-discrimination" laws, this one really ain't it. But at least the pedantic hysterical opposition conveys just how intolerant they are to even a tiny wisp of religious liberty by a lone baker - that itself is instructive.