Indiana Republicans released an amendment to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act Thursday morning. Here's the text:

This chapter does not: (1) authorize a provider to refuse 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; (2) establish a defense to a civil actionor criminal prosecution for refusal by a provider to offer orprovide services,facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, orhousing 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; or (3) negate any rights available under the Constitution of the State of Indiana.[...] As used inthis chapter, "provider" means one (1) or more individuals, partnerships, associations, organizations, limited liability companies, corporations, and other organized groups of persons. The term does not include: (1) A church or other nonprofit religious organization or society, including an affiliated school, that is exempt from federal income taxation under 26 U.S.C. 501(a), as amended (excluding any activity that generates unrelated business taxable income (as defined in 26 U.S.C. 512, as amended)). (2) A rabbi, priest, preacher, minister, pastor, or designee of a church or other nonprofit religious organization or society when the individual is engaged in a religious or affiliated educational function of the church or other nonprofit religious organization or society.

So does this absolutely preclude a RFRA defense for a religious florist who is sued by an individual or fined by the government for declining to work a same-sex wedding? "Yes," says University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock in an email to THE WEEKLY STANDARD. "There is still the state constitution, but the Indiana Supreme Court’s interpretation of the state constitution’s religious liberty provisions is cryptic, and most courts are unlikely to find broader exemptions in the general language of the constitution when they are excluded from the much more specific language of a state RFRA."

"The churches and their affiliates can still make an argument," Laycock added.

A few things to keep in mind: Indiana does not have a statewide law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, so the hypothetical religious florist, baker, singer, or photographer could only be sued or punished under the few local laws in the state that do prohibit such discrimination.

During a press conference unveiling the amendment, however, a number of Republicans expressed interest in adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the state's civil rights laws at some point in the future. Such an anti-discrimination law could be used to punish conscientious objectors throughout the state, and the accused could not defend themselves under RFRA.

Under the original text of Indiana's RFRA, according to a letter signed by 16 legal scholars, it was "not at all clear that the proposed Indiana RFRA would lead courts to recognize such an exemption" for wedding vendors with religious objections to working same-sex weddings. But now we know for sure that they would not be able to defend themselves under RFRA if this amendment passes.

Of course, very few RFRA cases have anything to do with gay rights. Most cases are uncontroversial. The most controversial and prominent federal RFRA case involved Hobby Lobby, a family-owned Christian business that objected to providing its employees with abortion drugs as mandated under Obamacare. In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby.

What if Indiana, at some point in the future, enacted its own contraceptive/abortion drug mandate? Would this amendment make it more difficult for a company like Hobby Lobby to defend itself if it were sued by an employee claiming sex discrimination for not covering abortifacients? "I think Hobby Lobby could still claim an exemption from that; that is not a discrimination law. But some people argue that in effect it is, because it is designed to benefit women," said Douglas Laycock. "So that would no doubt be litigated, but I think it is not a discrimination law."

Update: In a statement, Mark Rienzi, Senior Counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, calls the amendment "unnecessary":

The proposed “fix” to Indiana’s RFRA is unnecessary. Our country has had over 20 years of experience with RFRAs and we know what they do: They provide crucial protections to religious minorities. The key disagreement is over what should happen in a very small class of cases where individuals are asked to participate in a same-sex wedding in violation of their religious beliefs. In that situation, there are two possibilities: (1) Our government can drive religious people out of business, fine them, and possibly even imprison them; or (2) our government can say that these religious people deserve a day in court, and that courts should carefully balance religious liberty with other competing values. The original RFRA would give people their day in court; the proposed “fix” would be a green light for driving religious people out of business. Our society should not settle this issue by punishing religious people before they even have their day in court.

In a statement, Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Kristen Waggoner calls the amendment unjust:

“The religious freedom law is a good law. It does not pick winners or losers, but allows courts to weigh the government’s and people’s interests fairly and directs judges to count the cost carefully when freedom is stake. The new proposal unjustly deprives citizens their day in court, denies freedom a fair hearing, and rigs the system in advance. It gives the government a new weapon against individual citizens who are merely exercising freedoms that Americans were guaranteed from the founding of this country. Surrendering to deception and economic blackmail never results in good policy.”

In an email to THE WEEKLY STANDARD, Stanford law professor Michael McConnell, a former federal judge, says the amendment is "wrong" in principle but still upholds the core of RFRA:

In principle, it is wrong to exclude particular religious views from the coverage of RFRA (it is better to apply the same test and allow weak claims to lose) but as a practical matter this amendment is a good way to reassure the critics while still maintaining the core of RFRA.

Writing at the Daily Signal, Ryan Anderson calls the amendment bad policy:

The “fix” is bad public policy that explicitly exempts sexual orientation and gender identity laws from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act except with respect to a narrow class of nonprofit religious organizations and their agents.

Ramesh Ponnuru writes at National Review:

I would say that [the amendment] weakens the law, and undermines one of the law’s main purposes. The law as it stands today may offer some protection for the provider of wedding services who does not wish to do anything he believes constitutes an endorsement of same-sex marriage. The law as it would be amended does not appear to offer any protection. In many other contexts, however, the law would offer protection to religious believers burdened by laws and regulations. I would vote against the amendment. But even with the amendment, Indiana public policy will be more protective of religious freedom than it was two weeks ago. That public-policy improvement, though, has happened within a swiftly deteriorating political and cultural environment.

Update: Indiana governor Mike Pence signed the legislation Thursday evening and issued this statement:

“The freedom of religion for every Hoosier is enshrined in the Constitution of the United States and in the Indiana Constitution, which reads, ‘No law shall, in any case whatever, control the free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.’ For generations, these protections have served as a bulwark of religious liberty for Hoosiers and remain a foundation of religious liberty in the State of Indiana, and that will not change.   “Last week the Indiana General Assembly passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act raising the judicial standard that would be used when government action intrudes upon the religious liberty of Hoosiers, and I was pleased to sign it.   “Over the past week this law has become a subject of great misunderstanding and controversy across our state and nation. However we got here, we are where we are, and it is important that our state take action to address the concerns that have been raised and move forward.   “Last weekend I called upon the Indiana General Assembly to clarify that this new judicial standard would not create a license to discriminate or to deny services to any individual as its critics have alleged. I am grateful for the efforts of legislators, business and other community leaders who came together to forge this clarifying language in the law.   “Hoosiers deserve to know, that even with this legislation, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act enhances protections for every church, non-profit religious organization or society, religious school, rabbi, priest, preacher, minister or pastor in the review of government action where their religious liberty is infringed. The law also enhances protection in religious liberty cases for groups of individuals and businesses in conscience decisions that do not involve provision of goods and services, employment and housing.   “In the midst of this furious debate, I have prayed earnestly for wisdom and compassion, and I have felt the prayers of people across this state and across this nation. For that I will be forever grateful.   “There will be some who think this legislation goes too far and some who think it does not go far enough, but as governor I must always put the interest of our state first and ask myself every day, ‘What is best for Indiana?’ I believe resolving this controversy and making clear that every person feels welcome and respected in our state is best for Indiana.    “Our state is rightly celebrated for our pro-business environment, and we enjoy an international reputation for the hospitality, generosity, tolerance and kindness of our people. Hoosier hospitality is not a slogan; it is our way of life. Now that this is behind us, let’s move forward together with a renewed commitment to the civility and respect that make this state great.”