Tag Archives: Indiana

Indiana Senate candidate Joe Donelly on judges, amnesty, abortion, tax cuts, spending, welfare

Heritage Action Scorecard for Democrat Joe Donnelly
Heritage Action Scorecard for Democrat Joe Donnelly Indiana

A lot of American voters tend to approach elections like they approach food, clothes and entertainment. They choose what they like “in the moment”. But feelings about appearances is not the right way to measure a candidate. The right way to measure is by looking at the voting record. So let’s do that with Democrat Senate candidate Joe Donnelly of Indiana.

Democrat Senate candidate Joe Donnelly of Indiana

The Heritage Foundation is a respected Washington think tank, and they’ve collected together all the votes of the candidates.

Here are some of the votes that I found the most interesting:

For restricting choice in health insurance:

Disapproval of the Trump Administration’s “Short-Term, Limited Duration Insurance” Rule10/10/2018The Senate voted on a Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 63) providing for congressional disapproval of the rule issued by the Trump administration related to “Short-Term, Limited Duration Insurance.” Sponsored by Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), S.J. Res. 63 would use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn a new Trump era rule that would expand the availability of affordable short-term, limited duration health plans to one year.

Against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh:

To confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court10/05/2018The Senate voted on the confirmation of D.C. Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh was nominated by President Donald Trump on July 9th, 2018 and was included in The Heritage Foundation’s original list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

For wasteful government spending:

Bloated $855 Billion CROMNIBUS Spending Package09/18/2018Back in March, President Trump nearly vetoed a $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill promising the American people that he “will never sign another bill like this again.” One of the President’s objections to the omnibus was its lack of conservative policy riders – particularly sufficient funding for border security – combined with increases in the Democrats’ spending priorities. Six months later Republicans and the President find themselves in a similar situation.

Against defunding Planned Parenthood:

Paul Amendment to defund Planned Parenthood08/23/2018To prohibit Federal funds being made available to a Planned Parenthood and other abortion facilities.

For individual mandates in health care:

Motion to table Cruz, Cotton, Lee, Johnson D.C. Individual Mandate Amendment to Senate Minibus08/01/2018The Senate will vote on an amendment offered by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to Fiscal 2019 Interior-Environment, Financial Services, Agriculture, and Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act (H.R. 6147). The amendment would prohibit funding for the District of Columbia’s Health Insurance Requirement Amendment Act, essentially Obamacare’s individual mandate penalty applied to the district. Heritage Action supports the amendment and is opposed to the motion to table it.

For welfare entitlements without work requirement:

2018 Food Stamp and Farm Bill06/28/2018This month, the Senate could vote on the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (S. 3042), more commonly known as the “farm bill.” Despite repeated calls to enact work requirements for food stamp recipients and to reform runaway farm subsidies, the Senate Agriculture Committee approved a farm bill that maintains dysfunctional and distortive status quo welfare and agricultural policies.

Against cuts in government spending:

Rescissions Package to Cut Spending from Expired and Unnecessary Programs06/20/2018This week, the Senate will vote on the Trump administration’s rescissions request to cut spending by nearly $15 billion, titled the Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary Programs Act (H.R. 3). Under current law, the Senate has until June 22nd to approve the House-passed bill under expedited rules.

For control of the Internet by left-wing IT corporations:

Repeal of the FCC’s “Restoring Internet Freedom” rule05/16/2018The Senate voted on a Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 52) providing for congressional disapproval of the rule issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) related to “Restoring Internet Freedom.” Sponsored by Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), S.J. Res. 52 would use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to reestablish draconian net neutrality regulations imposed on broadband internet service providers under former President Obama’s FCC. Those net neutrality rules were recently repealed by the FCC under the courageous leadership of Chairman Ajit V. Pai.

For amnesty for illegal immigrants:

Cloture for Schumer-Rounds-Collins Amnesty Amendment02/15/2018The Schumer-Rounds-Collins amnesty proposal, revealed by the “Common Sense Coalition” drew fire from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which said the bill would “effectively make the United States a Sanctuary Nation.” Entitled the “Immigration Security and Opportunity Act,” this legislation provides amnesty and a path to citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants, fails to end chain migration and establish a merit-based immigration system for the 21st century, fails to secure the southern border, and undermines internal enforcement immigration policy.

Against tax cuts:

Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Final Vote12/20/2017This week, the House and Senate will vote on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1), the most significant tax reform and tax cut legislative initiative since the 1986 tax reform package passed under President Ronald Reagan. The bill would make sweeping changes to the individual and corporate codes, and eliminate Obamacare’s individual mandate penalty.

Against tax-deferred education savings plans:

Expanding 529 Savings Plans12/01/2017The Senate could vote on an amendment (#1725) offered by Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1) that expands higher education savings plans to include K-12 private school tuition and homeschool expenses. This amendment would help expand school choice by allowing families to use 529 account funds to help pay for private elementary and secondary education, including homeschooling.

Against repeal of government-run health care:

Repeal Title I of Obamacare10/19/2017The Senate will vote on an amendment (#1430) offered by Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) to H. Con. Res. 71 that would repeal Title I of Obamacare. This amendment expands the budget resolution’s existing deficit neutral reserve fund for legislation that repeals Obamacare to specifically include the repeal of Title I of Obamacare.

Against de-funding of Planned Parenthood:

Disapproval of Title X Funds for Planned Parenthood03/30/2017This week the House of Representatives is expected to vote on H.J.Res. 43, sponsored by Rep. Diane Black (R-TN), a disapproval resolution of the final rule submitted by Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) relating to compliance with Title X requirements by project recipients in selecting sub-recipients. Title X of the Public Health Service Act provides federal funds to states for family planning grants. Once states receive the funds, they have the ability to prioritize sub-recipients, directing funds to organizations like community health centers and family health clinics. While federal law prohibits government funding for abortion, it does allows certain public dollars, like the Title X grants, to support abortion providers if the funds are directed to non-abortion related health services. Under this exception, Planned Parenthood has been eligible to receive Title X funds, per the states’ discretion.

If you live in this state, please consider sharing this article to let everyone know how this candidate has voted in the past.

If you would like to read something about his Republican rival, this article from National Review covers that.

Democrat Phil Bredesen’s staff say he is lying to Tennessee voters to appear moderate

Conservative Marsha Blackburn is running for Senate in Tennessee
Conservative Marsha Blackburn is running for Senate in Tennessee

I hope everyone knows about James O’Keefe, and the excellent undercover videos that he makes for his Project Veritas operation. One of the most important Senate races in the country is the race to fill an open seat in Tennessee. Regular readers know that I am a huge admirer of Marsha Blackburn – a pro-life conservative. She is running against a far-left progressive named Phil Bredesen.

Here is the latest from Project Veritas:

Project Veritas Action Fund has released a second undercover video from campaigns during this 2018 election season. This report exposes Tennessee staffers from Phil Bredesen’s U.S. Senate campaign revealing his willingness to court moderate voters through deceit. This was especially evidenced by Bredesen’s recent statement suggesting he would, if he was already in the Senate, vote to confirm now Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

[…]Maria Amalla and Will Stewart, staffers in Bredesen’s campaign, both say on hidden camera that if he were in the Senate, Bredesen would not actually have voted to confirm then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh. They explained that the statement Bredesen issued in support of Kavanaugh was a political ploy to gain the support of moderate voters in Tennessee.

JOURNALIST: “Like he wouldn’t really vote yes [for Kavanaugh,] would he?”

AMALLA: “No, it’s a political move… He thinks that like we’re down like half a point right now. It’s like really close and we’re losing by a point or two. So he thinks that if like by saying this he’s appealing to more moderate republicans and he’ll get more of them to vote for us.”


JOURNALIST: “I was so confused because I just can’t believe he would actually vote [for Kavanaugh.]”

STEWART: “He wouldn’t. But he’s saying he would… Which I don’t know if it makes it worse or better. No, it makes it better…”

When asked to clarify that Bredesen is only saying he’d vote for Kavanaugh to “get the Republican vote,” Amalla, a field organizer for Bredesen’s campaign, affirmed, “Yes.” Amalla reiterated, “[Bredesen] thought that like by coming out in support [of Justice Kavanaugh] that it would get more republicans on his side. He wasn’t doing as well in the rural parts.”

Here’s the full video:

I have written about Marsha Blackburn 68 times since I started blogging in early 2009. She is one of my favorite conservatives. In all honesty, I would vote for her against pretty much anyone running against her. She is endorsed by the NRA , the Chamber of Commerce, and the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List.

Other Senate races: (current polls from Real Clear Politics)

Poll averages for critical Senate races
Poll averages for critical Senate races

The Tennessee Senate race is one of the most important races, but there are other close ones. If you live in one of these states, make sure you get registered and get out to vote. If you can put up a yard sign (I have three of them, one for each Republican candidate) then you should do that. I also got bumper stickers from the campaign office, and bought magnet stickers to stick them on, so that I can switch them back and forth between my cars.

Look, I believe that if we can get another 2-3 more conservative senators into the Senate, then we might see judges even more conservative than Brett Kavanaugh. My favorite candidate is Raymond Kethledge, but I’d like Amy Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We could get these two justices on the Supreme Court, but only if we take Senate elections seriously. Yard signs are good. Bumper stickers are good. Going door to door is good. Making calls to get out the vote is good. Do all you can if you’re in one of these critical states.

Republican governors signing pro-life legislation in several states

I'm Scheming Unborn Baby, and I approve this study
I’m Scheming Unborn Baby, and I approve of red state legislatures and governors

For the rest of Easter weekend, I have scheduled 5 posts on the resurrection. But this post is all about the wonderful pro-life legislation that our Republican governors and legislatures are enacting into law in red states.

Let’s start with something from last month, with Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin.

Life Site News reports:

Kentucky governor Matt Bevin promised to make pro-life issues a top priority, and Tuesday he made good on his promise.

Matt Bevin signed an informed consent bill requiring that biological facts and medical information be given to mothers in person or by real-time video at least 24 hours before an abortion.

“The overwhelming support for Senate Bill 4 in the Kentucky legislature is a positive step toward protecting the emotional and physical health and safety of women,” Bevin said in a statement before signing the bill.

Bill supporters say the reason the bill was necessary is because many abortionists circumvent the law by having mothers listen to a prerecorded message over the phone.

[…]Gov. Bevin chose this as the very first bill he signed into law. He put his signature to it as soon as legislators delivered it to him. The bill informing mothers of the medical and biological facts related to gestation and abortion becomes the Bluegrass State’s first new pro-life law in twelve years.

Pro-life legislation was previously roadblocked by the Democrat-controlled state House.

Here’s one from earlier this month, from South Dakota Governor Dennis Gaugaard.

Life News reports:

South Dakota just became the next state to protect unborn babies from painful, late-term abortions.

On Thursday, Gov. Dennis Gaugaard signed into law a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks and penalize doctors who do late-term abortions in non-emergency situations, the Argus Leader reports. Penalties for violations of the law include up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine, according to the report. The only exceptions would be in certain medical emergency cases, the report states.

[…]The state House passed the pro-life measure last week, LifeNews reported.

South Dakota has one abortion clinic left, a Planned Parenthood in Sioux Falls that does abortions up to 14 weeks; however, the new bill would ensure that later abortions will not be done in the future in the state. More than 18,000 very late-term abortions are performed every year on perfectly healthy unborn babies in America.

[…]The bill is modeled after the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which has become law in 12 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

The next one is from Indiana, where pro-life Governor Mike Pence signed a pro-life bill into law this week. This bill will prevent abortions of babies who are the “wrong sex”, the “wrong race”, or who have disabilities such as Down syndrome.

Life News reports:

Indiana has become the second state in the nation, following North Dakota, to ban abortions on babies who are diagnosed in the womb as having Down syndrome. Gov. Mike Pence signed the bill today to protect unborn babies from being aborted simply because of a disability, race or sex.

Pence signed House Bill 1337, which would ban abortion doctors from knowingly aborting an unborn baby solely because of a genetic disability such as Down syndrome, the unborn baby’s race or sex. The bill also has several other abortion-related measures, including a requirement that aborted or miscarried babies’ bodies be cremated or buried and another requirement that abortionists who have hospital admitting privileges renew them annually. The burial/cremation requirement backs up a law passed in 2015 by Gov. Pence requiring that aborted babies’ bodies be disposed of in a humane way.

“Throughout my public career, I have stood for the sanctity of life. HEA 1337 is a comprehensive pro-life measure that affirms the value of all human life, which is why I signed it into law today,” Governor Pence said in a statement.

Pence continued: “I believe that a society can be judged by how it deals with its most vulnerable—the aged, the infirm, the disabled and the unborn. HEA 1337 will ensure the dignified final treatment of the unborn and prohibits abortions that are based only on the unborn child’s sex, race, color, national origin, ancestry, or disability, including Down syndrome.”

The next one concerns Arizona, where pro-life Governor Doug Ducey is set to sign three pro-life bills into law.

Life News reports:

Three pro-life bills are on their way through the Arizona legislature and soon could be on Gov. Doug Ducey’s desk.

On Wednesday, the Arizona House gave preliminary approval to the bills, and a final vote is expected on Thursday, according to the Arizona Daily Star. The bills, already passed in the state Senate, would regulate the use of dangerous chemical abortion drugs, ban the trafficking of aborted babies’ body parts and remove abortion groups from the state employee charitable giving program.

Specifically, state Senate Bill 1324 would ban dangerous chemical abortions after the seventh week of pregnancy, as the drug label recommends. Abortion clinics often use the chemical abortion drug regimen RU-486 later in pregnancy and give smaller doses than recommended, likely in an effort to save money.

[…]The second bill, state Senate Bill 1474, would end the inhumane treatment of aborted babies’ bodies by abortion clinics and research facilities. Arizona state Sen. Nancy Barto, R-Phoenix, introduced the bill earlier this year, saying she was “shocked” by the undercover videos by the Center for Medical Progress showing top Planned Parenthood officials selling aborted babies’ body parts.

[…]The final bill, Arizona Senate Bill 1485, would ban abortion groups from the state employee charitable giving program. The ban is a continuation of a move last year by Gov. Ducey to kick out Planned Parenthood from the program.

[…]State legislators in the Senate also are considering a separate bill that would make it easier to defund the Planned Parenthood abortion business.

The fourth story is about South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, who recently endorsed Ted Cruz for President.

The Daily Wire reports:

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who is openly pro-life, will sign a bill into law that would ban killing babies in the womb after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

The bill, titled the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, was already passed by the South Dakota legislature on March 9; it has already been made law in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Nebraska was the first state to pass the law, in 2010.

Last September, Senate Democrats blocked the Senate’s version of the bill, as the vote was in favor, 54-42, but fell short of a 60-vote sum that would have prevented a filibuster. Ted Cruz voted for the bill while Bernie Sanders opposed the bill; Hillary Clinton has opposed the measure.

[…]In 2012, Haley signed the Opt Out of Abortion Act and the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act. The Born-Alive Infant Protection Act would protect unborn children who are born alive after a failed abortion but would be left to die afterward.

And finally, for those who like some religious liberty along with their defending the lives of unborn children, Campus Reform reports that Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed into law a bill to protect the religious liberty of student groups on public university campuses.

It was a great week!

Hillary Clinton attacks Indiana’s religious liberty law

First, let’s take a look at what Jesus says about same-sex marriage.

Matthew 19:1-6:

1 Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan.

2 And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?”

4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,

5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Now, let’s see some reactions to the Indiana law, which I explained in a previous blog post, from people on the secular left.

Hillary Clinton thinks that any arrangement of people who love each other is as good as any other:

Hillary Clinton opposes religious liberty
Hillary Clinton opposes religious liberty

Her tweet implies support for incestuous relationships being “marriage” as well as polygamy. That is a direct logical implication of calling an arrangement of people who love each other “marriage”.

But she’s not the only one.

Marriage defender Ryan T. Anderson responds to Apple CEO Tim Cook in the Daily Signal.

He writes:

Apple CEO Tim Cook has taken to The Washington Post to tell the nation that, in the words of the headline, “Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous.”

Notice the scare quotes around “religious freedom.” But the reality is that the only person in favor of discrimination in this debate is Tim Cook.

It is Tim Cook who favors laws that discriminate against people of faith who simply ask to be left alone by government to run their businesses and their schools and their charities in accordance with their reasonable belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. It is Tim Cook who would have the government discriminate against these citizens, have the government coerce them into helping to celebrate a same-sex wedding and penalize them if they try to lead their lives in accordance with their faith.

[…]As Sarah Torre and I explained last week, Indiana’s religious freedom law protects citizens from government coercion—it places the burden of proof on the government if it is going to violate liberty. For over 20 years, the federal government has lived by this standard—the Religious Freedom Restoration Act  passed unanimously in the House, with 97 votes in the Senate, and was signed into law by Bill Clinton. Twenty states have passed this law. And 11 additional states have religious liberty protections that state courts have interpreted to provide a similar level of protection.

So, in total, the federal court system and 31 state court systems enforce this level of protection. Why is Tim Cook suddenly opposed to it?

The answer is simple: This isn’t a debate about Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. This is a debate about whether Americans should remain free to live in accordance with the truth about marriage in their public lives. This is a debate about whether or not the government should be able to coerce people into violating their belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

This is what the Indiana law is suppose to defend against:

Again, it’s not a slam dunk – all it says is that when a secular big government sues a person of any religion to force them to deny their faith, then religious liberty can be brought in as part of their defense during their day in court. By the way, always vote for smaller government, then these things don’t even happen because marriage, family and private businesses are less regulated.

How is the law applied?

This article from The Federalist lists 10 examples of how religious freedom laws have been applied.

Here’s one:

7) Muslim prisoner fights to wear short beard: Abdul Muhammad
Abdul Muhammad is a Muslim incarcerated in Arkansas. He was not allowed to grow the 1/2 inch beard his religion commands even though Arkansas permits beards for other reasons. And the same beard would have been allowed in 44 state and federal prison systems in the country. In 2011, he filed suit. He won the suit using the “RFRA for prisoners” — the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. That bill was also signed by Bill Clinton.Earlier this year, Muhammad won his case unanimously at the United States Supreme Court. They held that he’d shown the restriction was a substantial burden on his religious exercise.

And:

9) Florida denies prisoners kosher meals: Bruce Rich

Bruce Rich is an Orthodox Jewish prisoner in Florida, one of the last remaining states in the country that doesn’t provide kosher food for Jewish prisoners. He argued this violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, RFRA for prisoners.

Florida claimed it limited food options to control costs and maintain security. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which took Rich’s case, noted that 35 states and the federal government provided kosher meals without it posing a problem.

[…]Rich withdrew his case once Florida began providing the necessary meals.

Does this law sound like a free pass to discriminate against gays to you? It goes to trial, and religious liberty is part of the defense that the judge considers.

Look at this opinion from another Indiana law professor:

I should stress–and this point was totally lost in the Indiana debate–that RFRA does not provide immunity. It only allows a defendant to raise a defense, which a finder of fact must consider, like any other defense that can be raised under Title VII or the ADA. RFRA is *not* a blank check to discriminate.

Here’s another defense of the Indiana law by an Indiana University law professor who supports same-sex marriage.

You can read another analysis of the religious liberty law from Gabriel Malor, a gay conservative. Actually, I re-tweeted THREE gay conservatives who were in favor of the law yesterday (Gabriel Malor, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Gay Patriot).  This is not what you are hearing in the mainstream media, but is being used as a club to beat Christians into silence. And sadly, many younger evangelicals will respond to this and vote Democrat out of a lack of understanding of the issues.

How to respond to complaints about Indiana’s new religious freedom law

Good news to start your day!
Good news to start your day!

First, the story, from the Daily Signal:

A bill known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act has been signed into law by the governor.

Supporters of Indiana Senate Bill 101 say that the law protects the free practice of religion, and opponents say the law will allow gay and lesbian individuals to be discriminated against.

For example, the law could permit business owners who felt that being forced to serve a certain customer in a particular case violated their religious beliefs to appeal to a judge. The courts would then decide if their objection was valid or not.

The bill was passed by the House 63-31 on Monday, and was approved by the Senate 40-10.

Gov. Mike Pence, R-Ind.,  approved the legislation today.

“Indiana is rightly celebrated for the hospitality, generosity, tolerance and values of our people, and that will never change,” Pence said in a statement. “Faith and religion are important values to millions of Hoosiers and with the passage of this legislation, we ensure that Indiana will continue to be a place where we respect freedom of religion and make certain that government action will always be subject to the highest level of scrutiny that respects the religious beliefs of every Hoosier of every faith.”

This is the key part:

Sarah Torre, a policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal that the bill is modeled off of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which passed with bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

The federal law “prohibits substantial burdens on religious exercise unless the government can show a compelling interest in burdening religious liberty and does so through the least restrictive way possible,” said Torre. “Protections for religious freedom, like the one passed in Indiana, provide a commonsense way to balance the fundamental right to religious liberty with compelling government interests.”

Torre said that it’s important to note that the law “doesn’t allow individuals to do whatever they wish in the name of religion:”

“The law is simply a commonsense way of balancing government interests with the fundamental freedom of individuals to live out their faith. There will be times when a state or federal government can show it has a compelling reason for burdening religious expression—to ensure public safety, for instance. But Religious Freedom Restoration Acts set a high bar for the government to meet in order to restrict religious freedom.”

Such legislation at the state and federal level merely protects First Amendment rights, according to Torre.

“A robust conception of religious liberty provides every person the freedom to seek the truth, form beliefs, and live according to the dictates of his or her conscience—whether at home, in worship, or at work,” said Torre.

Torre added that 19 other states have similar laws.

And if that were not enough, here is an Indianapolis Star editorial from law professor at Indiana University School of Law – who supports same-sex marriage – who is in favor of Indiana passing the bill.

He writes:

I am a supporter of gay rights, including same-sex marriage. But as an informed legal scholar, I also support the proposed Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

[…]The bill would establish a general legal standard, the “compelling interest” test, for evaluating laws and governmental practices that impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion. This same test already governs federal law under the federal RFRA, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. And some 30 states have adopted the same standard, either under state-law RFRAs or as a matter of state constitutional law.

[…]But granting religious believers legal consideration does not mean that their religious objections will always be upheld. And this brings us to the issue of same-sex marriage.

Under the Indiana RFRA, those who provide creative services for weddings, such as photographers, florists or bakers, could claim that religious freedom protects them from local nondiscrimination laws. Like other religious objectors, they would have their day in court, as they should, permitting them to argue that the government is improperly requiring them to violate their religion by participating (in their view) in a celebration that their religion does not allow.

But courts generally have ruled that the government has a compelling interest in preventing discrimination and that this interest precludes the recognition of religious exceptions. Even in the narrow setting of wedding-service providers, claims for religious exemptions recently have been rejected in various states, including states that have adopted the RFRA test. A court could rule otherwise, protecting religious freedom in this distinctive context. But to date, none has.

In any event, most religious freedom claims have nothing to do with same-sex marriage or discrimination. The proposed Indiana RFRA would provide valuable guidance to Indiana courts, directing them to balance religious freedom against competing interests under the same legal standard that applies throughout most of the land. It is anything but a “license to discriminate,” and it should not be mischaracterized or dismissed on that basis.

What the secular leftists in the media are saying is that the law gives religious people the right to reject any customer for any reason. Big businesses, which are overwhelmingly leftist, are also reacting the same way. The truth – as we saw above – is nothing like what the secular leftists are saying. The law is simply an echo of a federal law that already exists and was signed by Bill Clinton. Well done, Indiana. Well done, Republican legislators. Well done, Governor Mike Pence.