That seems like an uncharitable reading. I'd guess they just don't want to express anything that implies some specific interpretation of the law. I'm not sure

That seems like an uncharitable reading. I'd guess they just don't want to express anything that implies some specific interpretation of the law. I'm not sure there's anything they're doing that's not compliant, but uncertainty about whether that's true might be sufficient for them to consider it too risky to conclude that they are. I think, if anything, the facts that the law is written is relatively 'simple' language, doesn't specifically mention any technical examples, and is widely expected to be enforced 'spiritually' and not literally, makes it particularly hard for lots of organizations to know with reasonable certainty whether they're in compliance or not.