Final answer:
The Supreme Court found the Religious Freedom Restoration Act unconstitutional in terms of its application to states, as Congress exceeded its authority in defining the states' powers concerning the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. States have reacted by passing their versions of RFRA, particularly focused on LGBT rights and same-sex marriages, leading to ongoing legal and social debates.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Supreme Court ruled that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was unconstitutional in terms of its application to the states. The Court's decision in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) indicated that Congress had overstepped its constitutional bounds by attempting to define the extent of the states' power concerning the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The rationale for this ruling was that RFRA effectively required the states to follow a federal statutory standard for what constituted a violation of religious freedom, which is a power that the Constitution does not grant Congress over the states.
Subsequently, after the Supreme Court verdict on same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges, some states introduced their own versions of RFRA, aiming to protect business owners and individuals with religious objections to recognizing LGBT rights or same-sex marriages. Such state RFRAs often include provisions that would allow individuals and businesses to refuse service or discriminate based on their religious beliefs, leading to a complex interplay between religious freedom and anti-discrimination principles.