lawyer

#Things you missed about Indiana s religion law.

Story highlights

(CNN) By now, you probably have a position regarding the controversy over Indiana's religious freedom law.

You applaud the growing chorus of companies blasting the law as an invitation for businesses to discriminate against gays and lesbians, using religion as a cover.

Or, like Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, you are surprised at the backlash and maintain that it is basically a copy of a law that is already in the books at the federal level and 19 other states.

The issue drives a wedge because, well, the debate over religious freedom and gay rights is always heated, but also because the interpretations and motives behind the law can be questioned.

Whichever side you're on, here are five things you might not have considered when thinking about this controversy. These points might not change your mind, but offer context to better understand the uproar.

Honey Maid (@HoneyMaidSnacks) April 1, 2015

1. Federal and Indiana laws look similar, but differences matter

The federal law was intended to protect individual's religious freedom from government intervention, he said. The Indiana law justifies discrimination in the name of religious freedom, he contends.

Also, the law was envisioned to protect the religious freedoms of individuals, while the Indiana law also protects private companies, Schumer said.

So, how can the law's supporters claim it is basically a copy of the federal law?

If you look at the purpose of the law, the language in the federal and Indiana religious freedom laws are indeed nearly indistinguishable. In short -- the government cannot interfere with a person's religious practices unless there is a compelling government interest to do so.

The uproar is over that fact that the Indiana law expands the reach of the religious protections to include private companies and cases where the government is not involved.

Some say Indiana s RFRA reflects fed law (see images); basis is similar, but can t deny state expands reach pic.twitter.com/p8u9rB6Ex6

Mariano Castillo (@marianoCNN) April 1, 2015

Other states previously passed their own version of the religious freedom law -- Indiana became the 20th. But other state laws mirror the federal law much more closely than the Indiana law does.

2. Outrage is over predictions of what the differences will mean

The key difference in the Indiana law is that it expands the instances where someone can use religious freedom as a defense.

This is how it could make a difference:

In 2006, Vanessa Willock contacted a photographer about shooting her commitment ceremony with her partner. This was in New Mexico, a state with a religious freedom law at the time of the dispute. The company, Elane Photography, refused the job because of the co-owner's religious beliefs.

Willock sued Elane Photography for discrimination, and the company defended itself by citing the law. The photography studio lost the case because the court ruled that it could not use the religious freedom law because the dispute was between two private parties and not a government entity.

What would happen if that case happened today in Indiana, with the new, expanded religious freedom law?