Indiana's newly enacted "religious liberty" law has provoked nationwide controversy, largely because its chief champions are religious conservatives who have complained about businesses being forced to serve customers who are planning same-sex weddings.

If the point of passing such a bill is protecting religious liberty, not about discriminating against gays, there is a simple way to defuse the controversy:Include a disclaimer that the bill does not override any current or future state or local law banning discrimination against others in business or commerce.Doing that takes away the one compelling objection against this new wave of religious liberty bills. It would bring the discussion back to where it was in the 1990s, when the first set of religious liberty laws, including the 1993 federal act, were passed, with overwhelming bipartisan support. Pennsylvania passed a similar law in 2002.The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act was prompted by a U.S. Supreme Court decision that outlawed a small American Indian tribe's traditional religious practice. That ruling denied the tribe the freedom to continue using an illegal drug, peyote, even though it was a well-documented religious tradition.Since the federal law and similar state laws were passed, they have been reining in government attempts to do things like limit the length of prisoners' beards, deny Jewish prison inmates kosher food, prevent a Sikh from carrying a ceremonial knife on his federal job, and stop genuine religious use of other illegal drugs.But in the current discussion, those kinds of freedoms are not what supporters seem most eager to protect. Much of the talk involves how religiously conservative bakers, florists and wedding photographers are no longer free to deny their services to gays or lesbians planning to have same-sex weddings.Defenders of Indiana's law claim it is the same one as Bill Clinton supported as president in 1993 and Barack Obama voted for as an Illinois state senator. However, the fact-checking service Politifact found there are important differences in wording of the Indiana law. Unlike earlier versions, Indiana's extends the religious protections into the realm of commerce and business, and allows the law to be invoked against other people or businesses, not just government actions.When Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed the controversial bill, he did so in private, in the presence of three anti-gay rights activists who'd helped promote the bill.As far back as 2010, when he was still a U.S. congressman, Pence gave a speech to a Christian values group saying he supported "defending traditional marriage" and "securing religious liberty," literally in the same breath.If states want to make sure Jewish prison inmates can get kosher food, Sikh government workers can carry their ceremonial knives, and American Indian tribes can use illegal substances in religious ceremonies, more power to them.But legislatures should draw the line at any "religious freedom" measure that even remotely suggests it's OK to discriminate against citizens who are gay, lesbian or transgender.PennLive.com