The article reads, ... Pence simply refused to answer George Stephanopoulos directly when asked whether the law would allow florists to refuse to offer their services for gay weddings. ... It's entirely possible that Pence actually doesn't know. That's what's awkward about an RFRA.
Well, not really. It's actually very clear: the law does not allow anyone to discriminate. *If* someone discriminates in violation of an existing statute, and they challenge that statute under RFRA and their challenge is upheld, it is still incorrect to say that RFRA allowed the discrimination.
Realize what RFRA says: essentially, that we ask the Constitution whether the law violates the rights of the people.
Simply put: if a RFRA case ends up successfully challenging a law that prohibits discrimination it is the Constitution, and not RFRA, that is allowing the discrimination.
If somebody claims the right to ignore a law or government regulation due to religious beliefs, then the state is put in the position of having to prove that the law is in the state's interest and is the least restrictive means of doing so.
Which every level of government should always have to do in defending a law that substantially burden's anyone's exercise of their fundamental civil rights (of which religious liberty is, clearly, one).
Therefore the courts would actually be deciding on a case-by-case basis what it actually means.
Yes, but this is the Court's fault, not RFRA or its supporters, because jurisprudence on discrimination -- especially when you throw in the bizarre and unconstitutional nonsense that is substantive due process -- is a muddled mess.