The only real fix is a repeal. These "fixes" are futher entangling the state with the church. The state is choosing which religious beliefs are suitable for exemption; it's the government determining which religious beliefs are valid and which aren't. Plus, you shouldn't be able to get away with following laws that apply to everyone because you believe nonsensical things. I think RFRA is unconstitutional in its entirety:

In my opinion, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) is a “law respecting an establishment of religion” that violates the First Amendment to the Constitution. If the historic landmark on the hill in Boerne happened to be a museum or an art gallery owned by an atheist, it would not be eligible for an exemption from the city ordinances that forbid an enlargement of the structure. Because the landmark is owned by the Catholic Church, it is claimed that RFRA gives its owner a federal statutory entitlement to an exemption from a generally applicable, neutral civil law. Whether the Church would actually prevail under the statute or not, the statute has provided the Church with a legal weapon that no atheist or agnostic can obtain. This governmental preference for religion, as opposed to irreligion, is forbidden by the First Amendment. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 52-55 (1985).

What the supporters of these laws are saying is that Ollie's BBQ and the Heart of Atlanta Motel should have had the ability to deny service to black people back in the 1960's.