Short answer: Mainly No but rarely yes.

Here is a Yes situation: You are a butcher in your own butcher shop and you are a Muslim. You have the skill/ability to butcher a pig but you don't because your religion specifically forbids interaction with that animal. An oompa loompa comes in with a pig and wants you to butcher that pig. You say that your religion forbids it. In that instance, it isn't discrimination because 1: your religion specifically forbids you from that act and 2: you don't butcher pigs for non oompa loompas.

Here is another yes example: You are a Rabbi and an oompa loompa couple (totally not jewish) come to you and want you to officiate their wedding in your synagogue. Your religion only allows you to perform jewish weddings for jewish people. This is a specific requirement of your faith.

Here is a NO example. You are a baker and your religion says that oompa loompas shouldn't marry non oompa loompas. The mixed couple comes to you to make a wedding cake. The way the law works, you will have a very hard time showing that your religion specifically prohibits you from baking a cake for this wedding. Why?? The idea that oompa loompas shouldn't marry non oompa loompas means that the baker shouldn't marry an oompa loompa. Baking a cake for a mixed wedding doesn't force you to break that religious tenant.

This is why the outrage over the Indiana law is a bit much. While I believe that someone should NOT be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, I also believe that the Indiana law doesn't allow for that type of discrimination. Now the wording of the law does need some strengthening to remove some ambiguity, but overall it isn't the big deal everyone is making it out to be.