In a press conference Tuesday, White House spokesman Josh Earnest bristled at comparisons between Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the one it was modeled after signed by Bill Clinton in 1993.

Suggesting that Indiana Gov. Mike Pence was deliberately misleading people with the comparison, Earnest said that the '93 law was significantly different because it only applied to religious minorities and individuals. The problem with Indiana's law, he explained, is that it protects citizens in a "much broader" way:

EARNEST: Governor Pence has tried to falsely suggest that the law that was signed in Indiana was the same as the law that was passed on the federal level in 1993. That is not true. And, the reason that’s not true is the 1993 law as an effort to try to protect the religious liberty of religious minorities based on actions that could be taken by the federal government.

The Indiana law is much broader. It doesn’t just apply to individuals or religious minorities. It applies to a partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint stock company or an unincorporated association. It leaves open the question what type of religious views a joint stock company would may hold.

While Earnest danced around whether or not the White House wanted a full repeal or just an amendment to the law, he characterized Pence's request for a clarification of the law via amended language as evidence of Republicans scrambling to do "damage control" after public outcry. Earnest emphasized that the Obama administration stands with those opposed to discriminating against people "just because of who they love":

EARNEST: The kind of public outcry that we’ve seen in response to the signing of the law I think is indicative of how this piece of legislation flies in the face of the type of values that people across the country strongly support. We’ve seen the governor and other Indiana officials in damage control here because this law has provoked an outcry from business leaders across the state of Indiana.

Understandably we see business leaders saying they are reluctant to do business in a state where there customers or their employees could be subjected to greater discrimination just because of who they love.