Gov. Asa Hutchinson signed Arkansas' Religious Freedom Restoration Act Thursday — and the reaction from the press so far has been the exact opposite of what Indiana experienced last week when it passed its own version of the 1993 federal law of the same name.

For Indiana, the passage of legislation claiming to protect the religious liberties of citizens from encroachment by state or federal government elicited a loud and fierce outcry from the press, with reporters and commentators alike attacking the bill as inherently "anti-gay."

The original Indiana bill closely resembled the federal law, which prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening a person's free exercise of their religion — except in instances where the government can prove it has a "compelling interest" and can impose the burden in the least-restrictive way possible. And along with offering a defense for individuals, the Hoosier State law also protects companies and corporations.

And it was the inclusion of companies and corporations in the Indiana law that prompted pro-LGBT activists to characterize the bill as discriminatory, with many in the press following suit.

But for Arkansas, with Hutchison's signing of the bill late Thursday afternoon, there has so far been no such reaction. Unlike Indiana, headlines Thursday evening did not characterize Arkansas' law as "anti-gay."

That's because Hutchison, mindful of the Indiana outrage, moved earlier this week to ensure that there would be no confusion over whether Arkansas' bill would allow for businesses to discriminate legally against members of the LGBT community, announcing during a press conference this week that he had kicked it back down to the state legislature for further clarification. And media responded to his signing the law Thursday by playing it mostly straight, with story after story noting well that the law signed by Hutchison was the clarified version of the measure.

Meanwhile, after sustaining a week of criticism and attacks on Indiana, Pence signed a clarified version of the state's religious freedom law Thursday evening after it had been sent back to the House to have the language clarified. The now-amended version of the bill makes sure that businesses cannot use the religious freedom law as a legal defense for refusing services or accommodations, according to the Associate Press.

The clarified version of Indiana's law also makes it clear that discrimination based on "race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or United States military service" is strictly prohibited.

"Hoosiers deserve to know, that even with this legislation, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act enhances protections for every church, non-profit religious organization or society, religious school, rabbi, priest, preacher, minister or pastor in the review of government action where their religious liberty is infringed," Pence said in a statement after signing the clarified version of the bill.

"The law also enhances protection in religious liberty cases for groups of individuals and businesses in conscience decisions that do not involve provision of goods and services, employment and housing," he said.

But not everyone is happy with the various fixes.

The Federalist's David Harsanyi wrote early Thursday, "By claiming that RFRA bills can be 'fixed,' Republicans are only corroborating the false impression that these bills allow wanton discrimination against gay patrons. By claiming that you can fix this, you are only pretending that there is a compromise available that would make it OK for Christian business owners to refuse participation in gay weddings. None exists. You will be hounded until you are made to coexist."

Likewise, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty was concerned Thursday with the proposed changes, saying in the statement that the fixes to the Hoosier State's bill were "unnecessary."

"The proposed 'fix' to Indiana's RFRA is unnecessary. Our country has had over 20 years of experience with RFRAs and we know what they do: They provide crucial protections to religious minorities," Mark Rienzi, Senior Counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said in a statement.

To date, no religious freedom law has been used successfully to defend discrimination against gays and lesbians in the 22 years since Congress and states began adopting such laws.

On the opposite side of things, the Huffington Post's Amanda Terkel, who told the Washington Examiners' media desk earlier this week that there is no need to weigh arguments that suggest Indiana's original law was not inherently any-discriminator because such claims are flat-out incorrect, suggested in a report that Indiana's changes are not good enough.

"In the end, the RFRA 'fix' didn't really make anyone happy," she wrote.

Indiana University and the National Collegiate Athletic Association, both of which objected to the originally passed Indiana law, expressed their support for the clarified version Thursday.