I’m glad that you brought that up. I actually have read the entirety of the law as well as the entirety of the federal version, aka RFRA. The broadening element that you speak of mirrors how the Supreme Court has interpreted the specific meaning of the word “persons”. Minus the objection of Justices Sotomayor and Ginsberg on how the word should be interpreted the courts have majority of the time decided that a person could mean either an individual or corporate entity.
There are public accommodation laws that this law is not designed to cancel. Taking issue with the method in how it was introduced is one thing, and valid. However the larger issue that this addresses is what is getting lost in the fray. At issue is NOT whether someone claiming a religious exemption can discriminate against someone because of their sexuality. What’s really at stake is the ability for a person of faith to make a decision based on their convictions that happens to be separate from the state.
I respectfully disagree that this law is somehow a doomsday device for the LGBT community. They will continue to flourish and thrive. I respectfully disagree that this law will make it easier for bigots to hide behind their faith. I do believe, very strongly, that what many people within the more militant factions of the LGBT movement ultimately want is to eliminate any entity that doesn’t agree with them.

Also, look at the signing ceremony- it was done without the media and while a photo was passed out, the Governor’s office refused to identify the people attending. As it turns out, the people standing right next to Pence were people who had strongly advocated anti-gay legislation. The clergy were just window dressing. Normally signing ceremonies are widely publicized and with media coverage. The facts around the signing ceremony underscore the true intent of the bill. Pence did indeed show that he is not ready to run the State of Indiana, much less the United States. His law school should ask for its diploma back.