I'm pretty sure this was explained upthread, but I'll try again: According to Governor Pence and other lawyers, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal RFRA only applied in states which had similar state statutes. In effect, Indiana's RFRA simply enables the federal RFRA. Of course, I suppose the people of Indiana who had gay marriage laws forced on them by a federal court are just "whiners" because they had no say in the matter of how marriage should be defined in their state. Funny how that sounds worse than 3% of the population "whining" about how they should have a "right" that hadn't existed throughout most of the world for most of its history, doesn't it.
I read somewhere that the difference between the Indiana law and the federal law (and all the other state laws based on the federal law) is that the federal law only prohibits governmental entities from forcing people and businesses to do things that infringe on their religious beliefs, while the new Indiana law prohibits private parties from doing it also. So, the federal law actually didn't prohibit a private person from suing a business owner that refused service (obviously, since there have been lawsuits), but the Indiana law does prohibit a private person from suing a business owner for refusing service.