the federal law is not singling out particular religious minorities. if the federal law did that, it would be a violation of the first amendment. i didn t say it did i said any discrete religious minority. talking about religious conscience generally and that the government has to show a reason, a compelling reason and a least-restrictive means for thousand they re achieving their objective over and against genuine religious convictions. . those standards would have been in place otherwise. why won t you own something that s not wrong? there s not on the basis of the supreme court decision. all the supreme court did was, it said that the federal rfra doesn t apply to the states, they said it in 2007. they said you need your own laws. this law in indiana was not a dupe of the federal law. if you don t want to accept that. i m not here to convince you. but there s very little disagreement on that. that s why they changed the law. why not own the intellectual honesty of saying