“Second, Section 9 provides protections for “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened.” While it is true that the “is likely to” language does not appear in the federal RFRA, I don’t think it adds anything. It’s effectively asking if there will be a likelihood of success on the merits. In the case of Hobby Lobby a pre-enforcement challenge was brought, claiming that they were likely to have a substantial burden. No burden was ever inflicted. I’m not sure what else the “likely” language adds.”

“… or is likely to be substantially burdened.”

So, as I see it, Indiana sees Federal anti-discrimination laws being used against them and this law is covering all asses who want to throw them out the window in their own favor as they make up their “harm” after the fact of their acts of discrimination? That’s reading the tea leaves, isn’t it?