The Conference Committee Report from the Indiana legislature is out, and can be read here. It proposes to add a new section to the Indiana RFRA that, in relevant part, reads as follows:
Sec. 0.7. This chapter does not:
...
(b) establish a defense to a civil action or criminal prosecution for refusal by a provider to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment or housing to any member or members of the general public on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States Military Service[.]
There's more, but this is the gist of it. Not sure why "...or criminal prosecution..." is in there, as discrimination lawsuits are civil in nature and refusal-to-serve is typically not a crime, but better to be over- than under-inclusive.
It's notable, however, that the general defense-to-a-private-action language does not appear to have been stricken from Section 9, so hypothetically a person could still cite his/her "religious" "beliefs" as an excuse for violating someone else's legal rights in a context other than refusal-of-service. I still doubt it would ever actually work. Nevertheless, the "fix" to the Indiana RFRA is -- perhaps deliberately -- very narrowly focused on one discrete scenario, viz., the refusal on "religious" grounds to offer or provide goods, services, &c. to persons in protected classes, including sexual orientation and gender identity which are not protected classes under Indiana's state civil rights laws. True, that's what the uproar has been about, and rightfully so, and this is an appropriate step in the right direction, but it still doesn't go far enough.
It must be remembered that a civil lawsuit is, in its essence, irrespective of who the parties are, what the subject matter is, or what causes of action are alleged, an assertion by the plaintiff that the defendant violated his legal rights. Allowing "religious" "beliefs" to be a defense to any civil suit is absolutely unacceptable. If the defendant did not violate the plaintiff's rights, or the plaintiff suffered no compensable harm as a result, then the defendant can and should be able to win the lawsuit without any reference or recourse to his purported "religious" "beliefs." If he did, then the he must compensate the plaintiff. It's as simple as that. A defendant asserting "religious" "beliefs" as a defense is essentially saying to the court, "Yes, I violated the plaintiff's legal rights; yes, I inflicted economic harm on the plaintiff; however, because of my 'belief' in [insert myth/superstition here], I should not be held accountable."
Never. Not on my watch. Indiana must take the next step and make it clear that its RFRA "does not establish a defense to" ANY private civil action of any kind.