Story highlights The controversy over Indiana's religious freedom law is complicated Some factors you might have not considered

You applaud the growing chorus of companies blasting the law as an invitation for businesses to discriminate against gays and lesbians, using religion as a cover.

Or, like Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, you are surprised at the backlash and maintain that it is basically a copy of a law that is already in the books at the federal level and 19 other states.

The issue drives a wedge because, well, the debate over religious freedom and gay rights is always heated, but also because the interpretations and motives behind the law can be questioned.

Whichever side you're on, here are five things you might not have considered when thinking about this controversy. These points might not change your mind, but offer context to better understand the uproar.

As the author of the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), Sen. Chuck Schumer is one who can offer clarity over the controversy surrounding Indiana's version of the law.

Schumer mocks Indiana's contention that the state law is simply a mirror of the 22-year-old federal law. "That may be true only if you're using a Funhouse mirror," Schumer wrote on his Facebook page.

The federal law was intended to protect individual's religious freedom from government intervention, he said. The Indiana law justifies discrimination in the name of religious freedom, he contends.

Also, the law was envisioned to protect the religious freedoms of individuals, while the Indiana law also protects private companies, Schumer said.

So, how can the law's supporters claim it is basically a copy of the federal law?

See more here:

Five things about Indiana's 'religious freedom' law