Fox's Megyn Kelly misleadingly compared Indiana's controversial anti-gay "religious freedom" law to laws in other states and claimed that the measure wouldn't allow for anti-LGBT discrimination....

First, Indiana's RFRA is categorically different than federal RFRA and "religious freedom" laws in other states. Its definition of a "person" who can cite the law in a dispute is much broader than other laws, and the law allows individuals to claim a religious exemption in court "regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding." The ACLU of Indiana explains that those differences are "virtually without precedent" and make Indiana's RFRA much more expansive than other states' measures. Even Fox's own Bret Baier dismissed the idea that Indiana's RFRA is, as Kelly claimed, "not really that unusual."

Second, Kelly ignores that the primary argument in favor of Indiana's RFRA was that the law will protect business owners who refuse to serve same-sex couples - a plain example of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. If RFRA can be used to protect anti-gay wedding vendors, it might also be invoked to protect a host of other discriminatory acts, like a doctor refusing to treat the child of a same-sex couple.

When Arizona considered similar legislation protecting anti-gay wedding vendors in 2014, Kelly called the measure "potentially dangerous."