Getty

"The danger of enacting laws that address no particular problem is that you tend to create new problems you didn’t anticipate,” says Law Professor Robert Katz.

Earlier this week, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was signed into state law by Indiana Governor Mike Pence, giving both individuals and businesses the ability to deny serving patrons based on a “person's exercise of religion.” People supporting the law say it’s about protecting freedom of religion, and people against the law say it’s legalized discrimination, especially against LGBT individuals.

“The bill says that the government cannot impose any law that substantially burdens a person’s religious exercise without some sort of compelling government interest,” Professor Robert Katz of Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law explained to MTV News. Here’s the actual language of the bill on the Indiana government website, but if you want a rundown in layman’s terms, Katz was able to supply that.

“Usually we think of a law like that affecting individuals, a member of a church,” he said. “However, this also entitles businesses to invoke religious practice. It presumes corporations can exercise religious rights and gives them the right to an exemption from general laws.” He said it was similar to the Hobby Lobby case, only this would affect all businesses in Indiana.

“One of the unfortunate consequences of this law is because it creates an exemption to every Indiana law, it also provides an exemption from Indiana laws designed to protect people from discrimination.”

Does this law mean that a Jewish person could be kicked out of a Christian restaurant or a woman could be asked to leave a store because of the owner’s religious beliefs? Probably not. Unfortunately, other groups, like LGBT folks, are not protected by Indiana laws in the same way.

“The Indiana Civil Rights Law protects certain categories, based on race, religion, color and sex,” Professor Katz said. That’s why the examples above probably wouldn’t be affected. “So it’s unlikely you’ll be able to discriminate on any of those bases. The problem is that the Indiana Civil Rights Law doesn’t protect other classes, such as discrimination based on sexual orientation, or discrimination based on your status in the military.” In other words, it’s potentially open season on LGBT people and veterans, among others.

Katz pointed out that unmarried couples are also not protected. “Let’s say you’re a veteran and you want to rent a place in an apartment and you’re told, ‘No,’” he said. “[Or you’re an unmarried couple] looking for an apartment, you go to the apartment complex, and the owner says, ‘You’re living in sin and I refuse to rent to you.’ You have no right under the Civil Rights law to be free from discrimination based on the fact you’re living together unmarried.”

While these examples are pretty wild, it's the LGBT angle that's really been catching the country’s attention. Freedom Indiana, an LGBT rights org that was fighting this law, released the statement: "Over the past month, Hoosiers who want our state to be open to everyone filled the halls at the Statehouse. We wrote letters and delivered them in person. We called until they stopped answering the phones. We made it clear that this law will only be used to harm other Hoosiers, and that’s not the Indiana way. The lawmakers didn’t listen. The Governor didn’t listen. They ignored huge job creators and small businesses. They ignored churches and other institutions of faith. They dismissed the idea that a license to discriminate would make us unappealing to visitors and potential residents."

There is also talk of how this will affect the Indiana economy. Conventions like Gen Com (which brings $49 million to Indianapolis yearly) and The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) have threatened to take their conventions — and money — elsewhere. Actor and LGBT rights advocate George Takei is calling on a boycott of Indiana. Meanwhile, the mayor of San Francisco said he is stopping city-funded trips to Indiana.

Indiana State Senator Dennis Kruse, who is one of the co-authors of the bill, has expressed bewilderment to the backlash. “It will not hurt any of them, it will not affect any of them,” he is quoted saying by WISHTV. (A phone call from MTV News to his office has not been answered as of the time of publication).

Governor Mike Pence/Getty

Governor Pence also denies that the new law has anything to do with discrimination. “This bill is not about discrimination, and if I thought it legalized discrimination in any way in Indiana, I would have vetoed it,” he said in a statement.

That’s not at all how opponents see it.“What’s disturbing and unpredictable and overkill about this law is it creates a potential exemption to every single Indiana law," said Katz. "There are already protections in place to protect people’s free exercise of religion. The Indiana Bill of Rights has a free exercise clause that protects people from their religious exercise being burdened. We have a state Supreme Court that interprets our Bill of Rights in a way that’s very protective of religious exercise. We have a state legislature that routinely creates exemptions for generally applicable laws for people who feel burdened. What we have is here a situation where the people who were advancing the law could not answer the straightforward question of, ‘What is the problem to which this law is the solution?’ Nobody could give a compelling answer. The danger of enacting laws that address no particular problem is that you tend to create new problems you didn’t anticipate, which is likely going to happen here.”

Katz is uncertain what is legally going to happen next, but like many people, he wouldn't be surprised if this new law pushed out some LGBT residents.

“Nothing would have changed for religious people in Indiana, because the law already protects their rights,” he said. “There would have been no great exodus of religious people fleeing Indiana because they felt their freedom was being infringed upon. On the other hand, it’s perfectly reasonable in my view for minorities such as gays and lesbians who are not protected by Civil Rights laws to say, ‘Hey, you know what? They had the opportunity to protect us under this law and chose not to.’"