AUSTIN - As Indiana faces boycotts and national ridicule for its recently passed "religious freedom" law, a handful of bills facing Texas lawmakers this session would go much further, threatening to gut a 15-year-old law that offers protection to gays and lesbians from discrimination.

Texas' Religious Freedom Restoration Act states the government cannot "substantially burden" someone's free exercise of their religious beliefs. Unlike the law passed in Indiana this month, Texas' was a bipartisan effort that civil rights groups say has done a good job of balancing religious liberty and nondiscrimination, particularly because it includes a number of exemptions to protect civil rights and local ordinances. When then-Gov. George W. Bush signed it into law in 1999, some faith-based groups complained that it represented a "victory for gay rights groups around the country."

Unhappy with the current law, a number of state legislators this session are attempting to "enhance" Texas' religion freedom laws. They already are pumping the brakes, however, in the wake of intense opposition from the business community, agreeing to tweak their bills to ameliorate concerns that it targets the gay community. Civil rights and business groups, however, say the changes do not go far enough, voicing hope that the outcry lobbed at similar proposals in Indiana, and now Arkansas, will kill the legislation before it gains legs in Texas.

"This thing is equally bad or worse than Indiana, and look what's happening there," said Bill Hammond, head of the powerful lobbying group the Texas Association of Business. Organizations as disparate as NASCAR, Wal-Mart and Apple have blasted Indiana and Arkansas for their laws, already prompting the governors of both states to backpedal on their support.

Slew of concerns

Sen. Donna Campbell, R-New Braunfels, one of at least three lawmakers proposing so-called religious freedom legislation this session, said she will narrow her bill in the face of a slew of similar concerns.

Campbell's Senate Joint Resolution 10 seeks to enshrine the 15-year-old Texas law in the state Constitution, but without the key civil rights and local control protections. Her original proposal also removed the word "substantially," which critics said would have allowed anyone who thinks the government is infringing upon his free expression, however slightly, to sue the state.

On Wednesday, however, Campbell's staff confirmed she will re-insert the word "substantially." Rep. Matt Krause, R-Fort Worth, who has proposed an identical bill in the House, said he is not opposed to amending his legislation the same way.

"That's an improvement," Hammond said. "But we have a long list of concerns with the legislation and the issue of 'substantial burden' is just one of them."

The impact on the Texas economy could be significant, Hammond and other opponents said. Houston and other cities could lose the opportunity to host valuable sporting events and companies planning to expand their Lone Star State footprint could pull out - like Angie's List did with its now-canceled expansion in Indianapolis.

"The motivation is to permit discrimination on the basis of religious belief," said Rebecca Robertson, legislative and policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas. "That's not the brand we want to be associated with."

'Bunch of overreaction'

The opposition was heavy enough to lead Jason Villalba, R-Dallas, to drop his religious freedom proposal in early March, after which Krause picked it up. Krause said he would be amenable to tweaking his bill, but he chalked up business opposition to opponents simply not understanding the legislation.

"I think it's a bunch of overreaction, and not understanding what the law really does or what it means," Krause said.

Campbell senior adviser Jon Oliver said her bill would not undo the state's existing civil rights protections and "only addresses religious freedom by adding precise language to that part of the state Constitution."

Jonathan Saenz, the head of the conservative Christian organization Texas Values, added that Campbell's and Krause's amendments avoid extensive litigation by including language that allows the state to infringe minimally on Texans' free exercise if there is a "compelling government interest," such as preserving public safety or health.

"Texas Association of Business has now aligned itself with hard left anti-freedom organizations, like the ACLU, that not only want to redefine marriage but also want to redefine how Texans do business," Saenz said in a recent op-ed. "Texas business owners should not be put to the choice of violating their religious beliefs or closing their business."

Saenz, however, would not comment on more extensive proposals like that by Rep. Molly White, R-Belton, whose House Bill 2553 would allow anyone to "refuse to provide goods or services to any person based on a sincerely held religious belief or on conscientious grounds."

Texas proposals

It is unclear whether any of the Texas proposals will even get a committee hearing this session. Citing the "national attention" Indiana's proposal has garnered, State Affairs Committee Chair Byron Cook, R-Corsicana, said the House must be "very thoughtful" about bringing it up for a vote. In the Senate, his counterpart, Joan Huffman, R-Houston, said there were no plans at this time to hear the legislation.

Even if they pass committee and make it to the floor, as constitutional amendments Campbell's and Krause's proposals would need to garner two-thirds support of both chambers, and then be approved by a majority of the state's voters.

Hammond denied that he and other opponents have any misunderstandings about what the proposals do.

"I think that we do understand it. That's what scares us. I think the facts are on our side," said Hammond. It's "enough to scare the devil out of any lawmaker."