( CNN ) When Indiana Gov . Michael Pence signed his state 's Religious Freedom Restoration Act ( RFRA ) , he apparently did not anticipate the resulting uproar . Many of Indiana 's businesses fear that the law could be used to allow store owners to deny service to gay , lesbian , bisexual and transgender ( LGBT ) persons . The NCAA has expressed concern about the Final Four , which Indianapolis is hosting this weekend , and other companies have threatened to move their businesses outside of the state . But , when pushed on the issue , Pence insisted that the law is `` not about discrimination '' but instead is `` about protecting the religious liberty of every Hoosier of every faith . '' When asked whether he would allow an amendment to clarify that the law will not preclude anti-discrimination protections , the governor doubled-down , noting that `` we 're not going to change this law . '' But members of the Indiana legislature beg to differ with the governor , pledging to `` fix '' Indiana 's RFRA . And now , the Governor has changed his tune , also calling for a fix to the bill . Can there really be an easy `` fix , '' short of repealing the Act ? The answer is , of course , it depends . Under RFRAs like Indiana 's , people are not free to disobey any law in tension with their religious convictions . Instead , RFRAs create a standard to balance a person 's religious interests against the governmental policy at stake . Under Indiana 's RFRA , the government must show that its policy interest advances a compelling state interest and is the least restrictive means to address the problem at issue . The question would then become whether anti-discrimination laws advance a compelling interest in the least restrictive means . The answer to that question is easy : yes . The adoption of such laws have long been viewed as advancing compelling state interests , and the only way to eliminate discrimination is to ban it , so they are the least restrictive means . At present in Indiana , there is no state-level law that protects LGBT persons from discrimination by private parties . In certain cities and other , local jurisdictions , however , there are ordinances prohibiting such discrimination . Indiana would have two ways to `` fix '' the RFRA problem . The first would be to adopt state-wide nondiscrimination laws that protect LGBT persons . Such an act would confirm that , as a matter of state policy , protecting the LGBT community is viewed as a compelling state interest . This would bring Indiana into alignment with Illinois , which has a RFRA , but which also has a comprehensive nondiscrimination statute , ameliorating any concerns about the RFRA being used in discriminatory fashion . Given the wishy-washy answer that Gov . Pence provided when asked whether he thought discrimination against LGBT persons was appropriate , the likelihood of Indiana adopting a comprehensive nondiscrimination statute seems remote at best , eliminating this fix as an option . Another possibility would be to amend the statute to confirm that any federal , state , or local nondiscrimination laws constitute a compelling state interest for the purposes of the RFRA . Importantly , federal law does not protect LGBT persons from discrimination by private actors , and neither does Indiana state law . But this language would expressly carve out local ordinances from the scope of the RFRA , such as the nondiscrimination ordinance in Indianapolis . In essence , this would preserve much of the law as it existed before the RFRA : absent local nondiscrimination laws , persons are free in Indiana to discriminate against LGBT persons on any basis . This amendment , however , would make clear that the state-level RFRA can not be used to trump local city ordinances that protect the LGBT community . What are the odds of this second fix ? Well , that precise amendment was proposed -- and adopted -- in the Georgia legislature as it considered a RFRA comparable to Indiana 's . The result : the bill 's sponsors tabled it , noting that the exception for local nondiscrimination laws would `` gut '' the bill . That reaction shines a light on the true motivations for these RFRAs . If these acts are n't about discrimination , then why would ensuring nondiscrimination protections `` gut '' the bill ? It 's because these bills truly are about permitting discrimination against the LGBT community . All of the hand-waving by Gov . Pence and others can not distract from the truth : RFRAs are the first responses to LGBT advances .
Tim Holbrook : Indiana 's law allows discrimination against the LGBT community . Comment: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a baker who refused to make a cake for a gay wedding, but didn't rule on whether he was violating his religious beliefs by refusing service based on