"What the Foes of the Religious Freedom Law Get Wrong"

A reader recommended the following article for inspection.  The title of the post is the title of the Daily News article by S.E. Cupp.  

Cupp has some good observations:

The Indiana law, based on dozens of laws already enacted in other states, does not give businesses a “get out of gay free” card, if you will. It does, however, allow a business owner to raise religion as a defense when an anti-discrimination lawsuit is presented. There are no assurances that this defense will be upheld by a court of law.
But the outrage over Indiana’s law is outrageously inconsistent. Are Connecticut and Massachusetts, two liberal states with similar laws (whose governors are, not incidentally, mulling runs for President), also “backwards” and “intolerant”?
What about all the businesses that have scolded Indiana or threatened to pull out or halt expansion? Apple CEO Tim Cook, who came out himself last year, tweeted his disappointment in Indiana, saying that “Apple is open for everyone.” Apple still does business in Russia, though, where discrimination against gays isn’t merely a possibility but in fact codified into law. The company did briefly halt sales in Russia on Tuesday — not because of its laws endangering the rights of gays but because of the ruble’s plunging value.  

Hillary Clinton tweeted that she was “sad this new Indiana law can happen in America today.” But Clinton is happy to receive donations to her Clinton Global Initiative from Saudi Arabia, where homosexuals are actually beheaded.

But I take issue with other details in the article, specifically in the paragraphs I shall label [A] [B] and [C]: