I know scrutiny levels. I'm a lawyer.

Hey, this is awesome! I was just looking for someone to explain the difference between Indiana's unconscionable, discriminatory RFRA, which says in Section 8:

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

And Texas Title V Chapter 110 section 003, which says:

(a) Subject to Subsection (b), a government agency may not substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion. (b) Subsection (a) does not apply if the government agency demonstrates that the application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. (c) A government agency that makes the demonstration required by Subsection (b) is not required to separately prove that the remedy and penalty provisions of the law, ordinance, rule, order, decision, practice, or other exercise of governmental authority that imposes the substantial burden are the least restrictive means to ensure compliance or to punish the failure to comply.

I'm not a lawyer, but they both say "substantial burden" and they both say "compelling government interest". These look identical to me. But the Texas law put on the books and living there since 1999...

• Didn't turn Texas into an anti-gay dystopia. Austin was #7 on USA Today's most gay-friendly cities in the US in 2010, 11 years later. Dallas was also in the top 20.
• Was used (and celebrated by the ACLU) to defend an Apache schoolkid from having to cut his hair for school in Needville, and also to defend a Santeria practitioner's right to ritual animal sacrifice unharrased in his own private domicile in Euless.
• Wasn't used (to my knowledge) to defend refusal of service to gays in grocery stores, gas stations, doctor's offices, etc. just for "being gay." (As is frequently cited as inevitable from Indiana's law.)

(It also didn't stop Apple from building a big corporate office here with 3000 jobs, or expanding it to 6,000 in the past year or so.)

So what is the big difference? Is it the "even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability?" Is it something else in a different clause of one law or another? Or is it really just hypocrisy and over-hype? I'm strongly inclined to agree with OP, that ultimately no problems are going to arise in Indiana. Worst I can see is some gay weddings might have nominally worse odds of securing their first contractors or venues than non-gay weddings--and I really mean only nominally worse, like a 5-10% chance they'll be turned down by anybody unless they are specifically trying to target a place they know will turn them down. And maybe some gays will get kicked out of restaurants for gay PDA. Question though ... seriously ... was that illegal before the Indiana RFRA, and now it's legal because of it, and would become illegal again if it were repealed? Because although I'm a non-lawyer, that's not my impression of the legal results of this legislation.