Can someone confirm this about AZ's SB 1062

[Xithras]

10. The courts have also upheld a compelling interest in regulating discrimination.

The entire point of this law is that it undermines the states ability to assert a compelling interest when those interests conflict with religious freedom.

It's hard to imagine that the state would be able to display a compelling interest in regulating nudity, but would NOT be able to display a compelling interest in regulating discrimination against its own citizens. The law was crafted specifically to undermine the states ability to assert "compelling interest" in cases where that interest conflicts with religion.

So why would they be able to assert a compelling interest in regard to nudity, but be unable to do so in regard to discrimination, if both occur as the result of a genuinely held religious belief?