As state officials work to repair the damage done to Hoosier hospitality over the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the debate continues whether Indiana deserved its recent public shaming.
Gov. Mike Pence has had to face down accusations Indiana is a bigoted state and calls for an economic boycott to stop the new law from being used by intolerant business owners to deny service to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people because of religious objections to their lifestyle.
Douglas Laycock, a University of Virginia professor of law and religious studies, complained about the reaction to the law.
"There has been a hysterical campaign of misinformation," Laycock said. "Of course the law can be defended."
Ivan Bodensteiner, acting dean of Valparaiso University Law School, countered that opinion.
"The reaction the legislation is getting is exactly what it should get. It was aimed at people some disapprove of and want to give some freedom to act on their hostility, and discriminate," Bodensteiner said. "The Legislature ought to be ashamed of itself and repeal the law."
How the law would operate appears to be more complicated than some of the hyperbole swirling around it would suggest, from both sides of the political spectrum, an Indiana University law professor said.
Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor Steve Sanders said the law would allow a business to turn away gay customers and, if the victims filed a civil rights complaint, the business could use RFRA as a shield. If it goes into effect, it would exempt a business from any federal or local anti-discrimination laws — although there is no guarantee a judge would side with a business.
Jennifer Drobac, an IUPUI McKinney School of Law professor, gave an example.
"Let's say I go into a bakery not to buy a cake, but to get a job, and the baker, who is a devout Christian, asks if I practice birth control or used in vitro fertilization. If I say yes, the baker can refuse to hire me," Drobac said. "When you allow for-profit vendors to delve into the private lives, practices and religious perspectives of customers, you are giving an awful lot of power and authority to religious adherence."
Laycock argues an enlightened judiciary would reject RFRA as justification to discriminate.
"It's the law in 31 states by law or constitutional interpretation. It's been the federal law for the most of the last 50 years. All that time, no one has ever won a (RFRA) exemption from a discrimination law."
Sarah Warbelow, legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, said during a news conference Monday what sets Indiana's religious freedom law apart from the federal and other state statutes is that it explicitly allows corporations to have religious beliefs.
Drobac said such discrimination took place last year when the U.S. Supreme Court allowed retailer Hobby Lobby to refuse to pay for female employees' contraceptive practices that could cause abortions.
Laycock countered, saying that decision is misunderstood and in fact offered a way for Hobby Lobby employees to get birth control without violating their employers beliefs. Critics dispute that.
Pence has called on lawmakers to "clarify" RFRA with an amendment spelling out it cannot be used to discriminate.
Robert Katz, a professor at IUPUI McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis, said he was among several who asked a legislative committee last month to insert just such language into the bill. The committee rejected the advice, he said.
He said legislators instead should amend the current civil rights law to include sexual orientation as a protected group.
Deborah Widiss, an associate professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law in Bloomington, said she doesn't believe the religious freedom law is a license to discriminate, although momentum surrounding the controversy could be used to include sexual orientation in the state civil rights law.
Drobac said she has little hope the General Assembly will now strengthen what she sees as an essentially toothless state civil rights act.
A handful of downstate cities and counties have ordinances offering some protection against discrimination by sexual orientation, but officials in Lake and Porter counties said they are unaware of any in Northwest Indiana.
Katz said religious freedom always has been protected by other existing Indiana laws, but legislators wanted RFRA "in response to the legalization of same-sex marriage. This is state legislation to provide consolation and reassurance to religious conservatives in the state."
Laycock and other RFRA supporters said the law was meant to strengthen Indiana's protection of unpopular religious groups from government oppression.
Bodensteiner said there are all kinds of spin that can be put on it.
"But this could possibly hurt the state economically," Bodensteiner said. "I'm sure that is what got their attention. They aren't concerned about the fact they are granting second-class citizenship to some people. They get a little concerned when it looks like it will cost the state some business."
Times staff writer Elvia Malagon contributed to this report.