>> 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 i don't believe in gay marriage and i don't believe the state should