Critics say the religious freedom bills wending their way through the General Assembly won't have a prayer in the courts.
But supporters on the social conservative side of the aisle turn the other cheek to doubters. And a group of legal scholars is on their side.
Verse by verse, chapter by chapter, the measures are gaining traction in the Statehouse, where Republicans hold super-majorities in both chambers.
A pair of GOP bills — Senate Bill 101 and Senate Bill 568 — have taken the highest profile as they offer protection to people with strong religious beliefs. The bills are modeled after the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed under President Bill Clinton. That law doesn't apply to states.
Such protection, for example, could enable a baker or a florist to decline services for a gay wedding. Its supporters say it would also allow some adoption agencies to refuse to place children with same-sex couples.
"I'm in strong favor of the legislation and I think it's very unfortunate that we have to pass legislation to basically buttress our religious rights," said Crown Point Pastor Ron Johnson Jr., of Living Stones Church.
Opponents say the legislation smacks of discrimination, and they vow an immediate court test if it becomes law. Senate Bill 568, authored by Sen. Scott Schneider, R-Indianapolis, is still in a Senate committee.
"They are lawsuits waiting to happen; it's more wasted money," said Chris Paulsen, spokeswoman for Indiana Equality Action, a gay rights advocacy group.
What most do agree on is the religious freedom bills are a social conservative reaction to the legalization of gay marriage last year by federal authorities.
Supporters, including a group of legal scholars who weighed in on the bills in a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Brent Steele, R-Bedford, say the state legislation is bolstered by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed craft store Hobby Lobby to opt out of the Affordable Care Act provision to cover contraceptives for women. Nineteen other states already have passed similar laws.
Steele's committee heard four hours of testimony on Senate Bill 568 last week, but did not hold a vote.
The specter of Indiana gaining a reputation as a state that turns away people because of religious beliefs has led some pro-business groups to break from ranks with GOP leaders who include Gov. Mike Pence. The Indiana Chamber of Commerce contends the bill exposes businesses to lawsuits and would discourages new businesses from coming to the state.
Local business owners are pondering what the religious freedom legislation could mean to them.
"This is a hot topic in the bakery world right now," said Barb Tracy, owner of Marilyn's Bakery in Hobart. "I really feel that when you start talking about your personal beliefs, it opens the door to discrimination.
Tracy said she's already catered a backyard gay wedding.
"It doesn't offend me personally," she said. "But as I started reading about this, it reminded me of the civil rights movement — they used religious arguments to push personal beliefs out of fear and ignorance."
Janet French, a former Unitarian minister from Valparaiso, officiated Saturday at the church's Freedom to Marry event in Hobart.
In 2010, French officiated at her daughter Cara's commitment ceremony to wife Tanya Johnson at Coffee Creek in Chesterton. Their reception was at a local banquet hall.
"There was no push back, only support," French said. "I think that overwhelmingly most businesses want business."
French doesn't think the proposed bills will endure a test of time.
"I think this is the last gasp of the social conservatives, unfortunately it will take a little more time."
Crown Point's Johnson, who made an unsuccessful bid for state representative in 2012, disagrees the legislation discriminates.
"This is not about discrimination, like ethnic issues," he said. "Sexual choices aren't something you're born with like the color of your skin.
"The thought that a religious business owner or pastor would have to violate their deep religious values to accommodate public participation is just an anathema to what this country stands for."
Johnson didn't think giving businesses the right to refuse services because of their religious beliefs will hurt the state's business profile.
"To me it's a new niche in the market place. Bakers can cater same-sex weddings. No one is robbing anyone to function on the basis of their own conscious."
A group of legal scholars, including Edward M. Gaffney, a professor at the Valparaiso University School of Law, signed a letter endorsing Schneider's bill.
"By explicitly codifying this test in the Indiana Code, the proposed legislation would give religious freedom more transparent and more secure protection, explicitly instructing judges that religiously motivated conduct is legally protected, subject to the compelling-interest test, they wrote.
The Hobby Lobby case reinforces their stance that religious freedom laws can stand some court tests.
The law professors argued the notion of business owners refusing to serve gays was a myth, apart from specific services relevant to weddings. But they concluded it wasn't clear if Indiana's proposed religious freedom bill would exempt individuals.
They noted New Mexico's religious freedom law didn't help a a photographer who was sued after refusing to take photos at a same-sex commitment ceremony. The photographer used the law as a shield against discrimination claims, but lost the case when the state's Supreme Court ruled the state law didn't apply because the religious objector was sued by a private citizen.
Meanwhile, other religious-themed bills are percolating in the legislature.
Senate Bill 233, nicknamed the "Merry Christmas bill" by sponsor Rep. Jim Smith, R-Charlestown, would allow teachers to display traditional Christmas trappings in their classrooms, such as trees.
Smith said even though schools are already allowed to celebrate holidays, the bill was necessary because of possible legal threats. It's passed the Senate and is now in the House.
Senate Bill 127 has also drawn scrutiny and criticism.
State Sen. Travis Holdman, a Republican from Markle, wrote the bill to help Indiana Wesleyan University, which operates campuses statewide including Merrillville, receive state contracts for workforce training.
Last year, the Attorney General's office said Wesleyan's religious "lifestyle" mandate violated state contracting requirements against employment discrimination.
The university doesn't allow employees to teach against its faith beliefs. From its "lifestyle statement" that would include prohibitions on activities such as drinking, smoking, homosexuality and dancing.
State Sen. Karen Tallian, a Portage Democrat, is worried about the section of the bill that requires employees to adhere to the tenets of the employer's religion.
"This is outrageous. That is an invitation to litigation," she said.
Tallian said federal law does allow for certain religious-based organizations to show a hiring preference, but requiring employees to conform to all the tenets of that religion goes too far.
"Who's going to decide and how are employers supposed to know?" she said of tracking employee faith practices.
"Look at our Northwest Indiana hospitals... A lot of the hospitals are religion-based and they employee hundreds of people. Are we going to allow them to put on an application 'what religion are you?' and then require everyone to conform?"
Dan Lowery, president of Calumet College of St. Joseph, said Wesleyan prefers a homogenous culture in their students and staff.
"I don't think it's a bad thing if this is primarily to protect Wesleyen," said Lowery but "it's not for everyone." Lowery said the bill might make it easier to discriminate.