[tzs]

Several cities in Indian have added sexual orientation as a protected class. This law effectively overrides that if the person doing the discrimination claims it is for religious reasons.

In other jurisdictions when their RFRA laws conflicted with their anti-discrimination laws, the anti-discrimination laws have tended to win. The anti-discrimination laws won because the RFRA laws were interpreted as prohibiting government action that burdened the exercise of religion. They did not provide a defense when a person was sued under an anti-discrimination law by a person claiming to have been discriminated against, because government was not a party to the lawsuit.

The Indiana law contains specific language that says it applies to lawsuits even if no government entity is a party.

[forrestthewoods]

On your first point, it doesn't quite override that if they claim it's for religious reasons. It simply sets the benchmark with which the law must be judged. There must be a substantial burden. There must be a compelling government interest. And the restriction must be the least restricting way to achieve that interest.

That at bare minimum makes it not as apocalyptic as more than a few news reports had led me to believe.