From Section 9 of the law: "A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding."
In neither the photographer case or the baker case was the government a party to the proceedings.
I was wrong to speak before researching the matter and certainly appreciate the polite manner in which you corrected my error.