Broad strokes often have unintended consequences, and I think that the Indiana law that is seen as at least attempting to give cover to religious bigotry seems to be no exception. Rather than just blindly follow the monkey-pile on Indiana, I decided to hut the text of the law and see just what it could do. I think that it could do a lot that is not quite intended -- and it may be possible to use that conclusion against the law.
I've often said that the real test of your commitment to human rights does not occur when your rights are infringed. It occurs when the rights of someone you detest get infringed. If it is true that the proponents of the Indiana law are more interested in indulging their bigoted hatred than real religious freedom, then their love for their law may fade when formerly restricted practices of lesser known (and some lesser liked) religions get exceptions from this new law.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. If you want a real legal opinion, you should buy it from someone licensed to sell it to you, before you go waltzing down the street with pot leaves in your Rastafarian dreads.
More details below the Celtic knot.
The most operative paragraph of the law states that:
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Now, baby-killing Satanists (presuming that they exist) would probably find their foeticidal tendencies blocked by the 'compelling interest' clause, but somebody who wanted to offer themselves up as a live sacrifice to their God
might have a case to make. As far as I'm concerned, a neo-pagan coven that wants to dance naked around a copulating couple at solstice midnight should be able to get a permit to do so in a public park even (or especially) if that park is normally closed at midnight.
Muslim women who want to wear a hijab, Burka or Niqab should be given a wide berth by Indiana laws and regulations, and Rastafarians who worship via Ganja (pot), should be given similar allowance. I would even argue that a Rasta should be allowed to sell pot to fellow Rastas -- or even potential Rasta converts. Any arguments about compelling interest in banning pot use would probably be much dulled by the successful implementation of pro-pot laws around the county in recent years..
There are hundreds of religions and religious sects in the world, and some of them have very unusual, if harmless, customs that might shock a fundamentalist Christian. The wording of the Indiana law gives equal footing to those lesser-known religions as it does to both main-line and fundamentalist Christian sects. It has to, otherwise it would be illegal under the first amendment doctrine of separation of church and state. That fact could be used to weaken the allure of this statute for it's more intolerant proponents.