It does one of the better jobs of explaining the differences between the federal act and the other states acts as compared to the Indiana act. Here is another decent article on the differences http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/03/30/3640374/big-lie-media-tells-indianas-new-religious-freedom-law/

The Citizens United Supreme Court ruling that for the very first time says corporations are people. Then we have the Hobby-Lobby Supreme Court decision that says corporations have deeply held religious views that must be protected when it comes to health insurance contraceptive coverage. Now Indiana is expanding that ruling into other areas involving interaction between businesses and the public that opens the door to discrimination against people not covered by protections under the civil rights laws.

One would think that all of this is unnecessary because of the 1st Amendment protections but this Supreme Court has chosen to chip away at the 1st Amendment by the extra-legal gutting of the establishment clause in the 1st Amendment. The Supreme Court has become the supreme legislative body in this country so the Supreme Court needs to be fixed by taking away their dictatorial powers.

Was Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886). In an otherwise completely unremarkable decision on commercial property tax assessments, there is a note

One of the points made and discussed at length in the brief of counsel for defendants in error was that 'corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.' Before argument, Mr. Chief Justice Waite said: The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.

I bring that up because the 16th Amendment authorizing the income tax resulted in corporate and individual income taxes being treated differently so where is the equal protection with income taxes. Indeed, even today there are classes of property with different tax rates and that is what causes me to ask if the ruling is still on the books. Granted, the Supreme Court often splits hairs so they could conceivably have different standards for property and income taxes. Something I don't understand is why the counsel for the defendant would bring up the point that corporations are persons within the meaning of the 14th Amendment if it is as the Chief Justice says "we are all of the opinion that it (corporations are persons) does (apply)".

Still, granting personhood to corporations as done in Citizens United is a giant leap from 14th Amendment protections on property taxes. Citizens United also declared that money is speech so money is as unencumbered as speech.

It is, in fact, at the heart of the Hobby Lobby decision.

that they need special laws to protect their practices of intolerance.

Christians should feel insulted.

allow non-Christians to discriminate against Christians, wouldn't it? I think so. Probably some backlash would be appropriate here. Jewish movie theaters might exclude Christians, Muslim operated stores could refuse service to Christians, and on and on. What a nice pickle for a state to be in. I would like to see it happen. These idiots need to learn a lesson that religious freedom means for everyone - every single person - or no one at all. There is no compromising. Religious freedom exists for all or it exists for none.

Dumb-ass Fundies will never get it. They have the same mindset as the Taliban.,

This bill would permit religious people to discriminate against gays but would not permit gays to discriminate against people of faith.

Indeed, would this bill not also allow for people of faith to discriminate against atheists. And if that is the case it runs headlong into the establishment clause. What a mess.

I'd say the SCOTUS.