>> coming up next, newsmakers. at 8:00 on q&a, high school students from the senate youth program discuss their reason is it including meeting with the president, members of his cabinet, and elected officials. greta: this week on "newsmakers" -- tony perkins, the president of the family research council joins us from baton rouge. in studio, we have paul singer and mike warren. paul, go ahead with the first question. paul: can you explain for the viewers why a bill like the religious freedom restoration act is necessary, and in particular in the state of indiana?

tony: you go back to bill clinton 1993, the federal rfra did not apply to states. since then, you have had 20 states -- actually, 21 by the weekend -- who have adopted the state version of the religious freedom restoration act. quite frankly, it is to protect the exercise. it is not an ironclad defense. it allows christians or other religious persons -- not just limited to one religion -- to put a defense against those at the state who would prevent them from living out their faith. that is what religious freedon is. it is the ability to believe and live according to your belief. in some sense it is a shield. it is not a sword to force anyone else. paul: within your shield

analogy, have there been attacks in the state of indiana, for instance, that this bill would solve? is it a solution in search of a problem? or is it actually a problem? tony: why you have seen the increase or focus in states like indiana is because you have seen a conflict between christians in the marketplace and the government trying to force some to engage in something that violates their faith. one of the prime examples, which came to the forefront in indiana was that of same-sex marriage where florists bakers, other , vendors have been forced to participate in something that violates their faith. it's not about serving different people of the community. they all serve people in the community, and they should if they open the doors for business, but they should not be forced to be involved and be part of something that is religious in nature the violates

their faith and their beliefs. paul: you just answered a question as to whether or not gays and lesbians, and others, should be discriminated against or not. that was something that governor mike pence was unable to do on sunday last week when he was asked by george stephanopoulos about this. i'm wondering what your assessment and response is to this outcry. was there something that he could have done better? tony: this is an accommodation. it is to allow someone to make a defense. it is not automatic. yes, they are particular cases. if you look at cases like a grandmother in washington state, but very similar situation, she is a florist. she had a long time customer who was gay, would talk to him when he would come into the store

but he was getting married and he wanted her to do the floor -- floral arrangements. she said, i'm sorry, i can do that, it violates my faith. the state of washington got involved, suing her. she may lose her business, and not just her business, but her home as well. rfra simply allows for an accommodation of people. let's talk about who been a that's from it. -- who benefits from it. it cut both ways. it could be a baker who is owned by someone who is gay and if a church comes then, or someone associated with religion wanted a scripture put onto a cake that said something about homosexuality and the baker didn't want to do it, they should have the right not to do it. government should not be a party to forcing speech or forcing people to engage in activities that violate their beliefs. that is simply what rfra is.

michael: do you think of it or -- you think mike pence could have done something better or different? tony: i think he should have said what i said, quite frankly. that's what i believe. i have known mike for a long time back when he was a radio talkshow host. i was in office, and i was on his program back then. i think mike was unprepared for what came to indiana as a result of this. it's really kind of -- the hypocrisy from corporate america is really quite amazing to me. how you have all of these ceos jumping in and saying that we will not do business in indiana, when they are doing business in china, the middle east, and other places where not only do they persecute people of faith but in some of those countries they actually execute homosexuals. i think the hypocrisy here on the left -- i think that there

is hypocrisy here from the left. the fact that the media did not call them out for that is quite striking. michael: let me back up to one point that you made about gay marriage, and should i have to make a gay cake if it is strongly against my belief. should i be required to bake a cake for a mixed race marriage if i believe that based on my religion they should not be intermingled? tony: that is why rfra lays out a five-point test in which you can make the defense, but you have to prove that this is a true religious belief. you have to lay a foundation for it. i will tell you, there are those that like to draw the analogy and parallels to the civil rights movement. there is very little scriptural evidence that one can use to substantiate a racist view of black and white or any other races. there are some that try. it's not there. marriage goes from genesis to

revelation. jesus himself, he says, have you not heard, god made them male and female, that's what marriage is. he said it. so the scripture is very clear that when it speaks to marriage. you have so much historical evidence within the church. that is a well-documented viewpoint. not the same for the issue of race. paul: i will not argue scripture with you, not my area of expertise, but politics intrigues me more. it seems like supporters like yourself of this law under estimated the opposition and the way this law would be received particularly in indiana. it seems like it came out of nowhere. can you speak to how it was that your side sort of miss this coming, didn't see this coming. tony: i wouldn't say they miscalculated. we saw the same thing last year in arizona.

a lot of it comes down to the leadership, quite frankly, as to whether or not they will be forceful in standing in defense of religious freedom. one of the things that i think has changed a bit, is certainly different, and in this case in indiana, and even in arkansas, is the fortune 500 companies that are jumping in on this. it is interesting that they are doing so because in particular , walmart, who weighed in on religious freedom in the arkansas legislator are doing so at their own peril. i don't think they are thinking this through when they side with a left on social policy. these are the same people who, when walmart goes to expand in a community, these are the ones that are raising zoning issues and environmental issues teaming up on labor laws to deny them expansion. once walmart and companies like that begin alienating their base

that shops and their stores, who also go to church on sunday, i think walmart may be rethinking their jumping in on these social issues. greta: are these companies perhaps reflecting what polls show, a shift in support for gay marriage in recent years. tony: the nation is pretty much divided on the issue of same-sex marriage. but they are not when it comes to religious freedom. that is what we are talking about here. this is an 80% issue. we are not talking about same-sex marriage. that happens to be a small portion that becomes a party to this, but that is not what is at the heart of this. what is at the heart of these religious freedom restoration acts is the ability of a person of faith to live there lives according to their faith. most people get that. whether they be a person of faith or not, they believe, as the first amendment lays out, we

have a right to not only believe, but live according to those beliefs. that is what this is about, and this is not something that americans are divided on. i believe corporate america will find that out. michael: talk a little bit about the politics of this. a number of the 2016 republican presidential candidates from jeb bush to rick santorum have all come out and defended mike pence , defended the indiana law. tell me a little bit about the politics of this and should 2016 hopefuls be forceful leaders on this issue of religious freedom. tony: i think that is very instructive. and that is a great question. in my almost two decades now in politics, i have found that the best indication of where an electorate is is where candidates are. and i've actually spoken last week to a number of those presidential candidates, and they are out there almost every

day, doing unofficial focus groups as they meet with people and talk with people. when a politician -- and some of these guys, i'm not going to question their sincerity on these issues because i know many of them and i know they are absolutely sincere, so don't want to cast any doubt over where they stand, but i am saying that when you look at where presidential candidates in this issue are, i do believe it is an indication as to where the american people are. they are out there listening hearing, and reflecting what americans are saying. michael: this is something that was certainly serve a republican candidate well in a primary, but there is some question as to whether this is good campaign politics to make this case for religious freedom, particularly as those numbers on a marriage, which are related to the specific question, as those move away from the republican position. how should a republican presidential candidate who wins the nomination be talking about

this issue in a general election environment. tony: again, the same-sex marriage is on the peripheral of this issue of religious freedom. it is there, but not the heart of it. i think it is how you talk about it. this is not about denying anyone something. this is about keeping someone from being forced to do something that violates their faith. so there is a key difference here. i think it is how you talk about it. when you look at republican primary politics you are absolutely correct. about half of voters in primaries are social conservatives. when you go to general elections, it is still somewhere between one quarter and one third, depending on voter turnout. so it is still a significant part. if someone doesn't think it is important, all they have to is go back and talk to john mccain or mitt romney about it. a lot of those stayed home, and they did not win. it will be a key component. it is how you communicate it.

i do believe that religious freedom will be a major discussion item in the 2016 election cycle. that is to the republicans benefit. democratic leading candidates have taken opposing view. this provides a very clear contrast between candidates and between parties. michael: i'm not sure -- i don't need to be argumentative, but i'm not sure i agree with you that the american public in general sees the issue of religious freedom as a main issue, and the same-sex marriage is peripheral. i think in the general population, it is the other way around. same-sex marriage is an issue that people are very familiar with and has been discussed a lot in the last two years, and religious freedom issue is a narrower group that care about it. it looks like they will pass some kind of sexual orientation protection for the first time, sort of in the wake of these

laws, indicating that it is sexual orientation issue that is more dominant. this gets back to the question how prepared are you for this debate? tony: what i meant about that is that when we talk about religious freedom, religious freedom is not about same-sex marriage. they sex marriage is on the peripheral of religious freedom. paul: i understand. tony: the issue of should we have same-sex marriage or religious freedom are two separate issues, although there is some overlap. that was my point. paul: i understand. then back to the question the outcome in indiana has been towards essentially establishing some sort of legislation. tony: it is not done yet. we are monitoring this in real time. i have had conversations with many folks on the ground and they understand what's happening. i'm not yet prepared to say what

will come out of indiana. paul: do you have a concern about a broader backlash that this inspires more legislative efforts to establish protected classes, or establish more legislation that favors gaze gays or gay marriage? tony: no. in the wake of indiana, you saw arkansas moving forward. what does look like it will come out arkansas is -- the only tweak there is that they went back and adopted the federal language from rfra, which has very narrow issues of difference between what arkansas originally introduced and what the federal rfra says. if there was going to be this huge political backlash, i don't think we would be seeing this pass in arkansas. the same thing happened last year when arizona, the governor out there got cold feet and vetoed it. right on the heels of that, mississippi picked it up.

i don't think one particular state will define the future as to what's happening when it pertains to religious freedom. greta: mr. perkins, you said this issue of religious freedom will be played out in the 2016 cycle. what did you make of senator rand paul not initially saying something right away about this indiana law? do you think that was a mistake to not come out forcefully, as you say? tony: i don't really consider rand paul the bell cow when it comes to what's happening within conservative circles. greta: explain that for our viewers. what do you mean? tony: if you grow up in the country, it's the bell cow that leads everybody else. rand paul is out in a different pasture. whether it's foreign policy domestic policy as it pertains to religious freedom, he's just different on these things. i don't consider where rand paul is to be reflective of where the republican party is going to be.

is there an element of republican leaning voters that follow and listen to rand paul? absolutely. but i certainly don't see that as any clear indication as to where the party is. michael: pulling back a bit and looking at 2016 and some of the republican candidates, in addition to rand paul, this past week was the 10 year anniversary of the death of terri schiavo, a galvanizing issue for social conservatives. jeb bush, then the governor of florida, was on the side of social conservatives. i'm wondering if we can start with governor bush and your assessment on him, not just on the issue, but on social issues and the issues that concern you as an activist and someone in politics. tony: you are correct to point out that jeb bush was very outspoken on the issue of terri schiavo 10 years ago. this was an issue of the

legislative-executive branch exerting their proper authority, not allowing courts to be the final say. and of course, we know how that situation worked out. however, he also has a very clear record in the state of florida as the governor on life issues. that was not an anomaly from him. he has been very clear and outspoken on behalf of of life. he spoke out this week in support of the freedom restoration act. he understands. i have sat down and spoken with him regarding the threats to religious freedom. not systematically, but how religious persecution has been spreading abroad as the result of american presence on this issue. i know there have been some reports that i was organizing against jeb bush. that is absolutely not true. i have not picked a candidate. i'm talking to him. i think there are some issues

that conservatives have concerns about with jeb bush. common core would be one that our constituency would have a concern with. the content of what he says, as it pertains to education, we are not that far off. so i think jeb bush has opportunity to gain ground with conservatives. i'm certainly willing to have conversations with him. michael: 2016 will also be a congressional year. that strikes me that this legislation that we are discussing today is not an issue that we would have considered to be of interest in the senate election in two years a couple of weeks ago. now, it may be a central role in the election. how do you see that playing out? do you expect david letterman to be the candidate? tony: it could be. you never know.

there is so much more that could happen between now and then. i do think this is not going to go away soon. i was on the phone today, not only with legislators, those involved in the political process, but i was talking to pastors in indiana who were very concerned and upset with what had happened. we have seen this and other situations. once the dust settles and people realize what had happened, they even respond in a stronger way. we saw this in houston when the mayor there overreached and subpoenaed the pastors for their sermons. and pastors in the community have organized, and we have yet to see into the issue. how this might play out? i don't know. there are other factors that play in. i will tell you, this will not go away easy. i do believe it will be a factor. how big of a factor? that i don't know. paul: and this issue will mobilize your base. for the voters who are members

of your coalition, this is a fundamental issue for them. tony: it is, depending on the final product. what comes out of indiana, and if this is something that threatens further threatens, and actually would turn out worst -- worse than what was previously the status quo, then yes. if religious liberty is that threat, there will be organizing on the ground in indiana. it could have impacts on a future election. michael: thinking broadly about social issues, i think about the polling on the two major social issues in front of the country. gay marriage on the one hand and abortion. it seems like they are moving in upset directions in terms of where the public is with respect to what the government should do about that. in fact, it you are saying young people are more pro-life than their parents organization, but they are also much more pro-gay

marriage. can your coalition change the way that your approach federal issues like this? are there issues that the coalition should emphasize or deemphasize, or different ways of talking about those two issues and other social issues? tony: that is an interesting question. you look now on abortion we are , 42 years into this issue that the court was going to solve in 1973 with roe v wade. we find today that they have not solved it. in fact, abortion is an issue in every election from president on down. if you go back to the mid to late 1970's, young people of that day were not pro-life. there was not a warm embrace of the political establishment of life. in fact, it has only been the last 10 to 15 years of the republican party has come to

point where the pro-life perspective has come to dominate. even when i came in to politics in the mid- it was still 1990's, controversial. i remember being called pro-life, anti-woman, big it biggot. you don't hear that anymore among republicans. i would say there are parallels between the two issues. as time moves on, that is when the file came from abortion, you saw people changing their perspectives, rethinking it. i think the same happens with the redefinition of marriage. if the court things they -- thinks they will solve this issue when they take it up, all they need to do is look back at 1973 and how they did solving the issue of abortion. michael: there have been rumblings that some folks in the republican party that they want to get rid of the traditional marriage platform. you think that would be a mistake? there is all this polling that shows, we could pick up

millennials. you think that's not going to be an electoral problem for 2016 to keep that in? tony: i think it's going to be an issue. i think if the party abandons, and jettisons its view of natural marriage, to pick up what slice they are talking about of millennials, it's not huge. then, they run the risk of alienating a large portion of their base, which was the difference really in 2012 with mitt romney in the post election analysis. it was actually those core republican voters who did not trust him, did not feel his positions were genuine, and stayed home. the difference was, barack obama was reelected. >> we have time for one more question. >> but the sense in the

republican party of the last six or eight years has been a rise in the tea party movement for the lack of a better word, the much more libertarian, specifically in small government and load deficit, and lessen than social issues, whereas in the 1980's it was the moral majority that was ascendant. do you have a concern that the party is moving more towards this small government, i don't care what you do in your bedroom, small deficits, and not on social issues? tony: i'm all for small government. but, the idea that we can have strong small government and fractured and fragile families because in is a misnomer. in our society, that is why government has grown so big. if we deemphasize the moral fabric, the government has been left to pick up the pieces. i think we have to do both. if you strengthen the size of the government, you need to strengthen the family. you don't strengthen the family

by depriving kids of moms and dads. the party is going to have to wrestle with both if it was to be successful. more importantly than that if , the country will be successful. greta: tony perkins, president of the family research council. thank you very much for joining us on "newsmakers." tony: great to be with you. thank you. greta: let me turn to you, gentlemen, to talk about what we heard here from mr. perkins. let's begin with the indiana law. holsinger, what do you think the impact is of this whole debate on the republican party? >> it was a debate that they were clearly not anticipating having. any trial lawyer will tell you that you don't go into court and -- until you know the answers to the questions you're going to ask. i think in this case, they did not know in advance that they would unleash this firestorm of debate. i think it is not ultimately where republicans wanted to be having this conversation about should you or should you not have to bake a cake for gay marriage. in the opening days of the gop primary season, i don't think

it's where most of the party wanted to be. on the other hand, i think this -- that he does have a point there. it energizes a portion of the voters that they need to have of the poll. if the passion last, it could be helpful to the eventual nominee. michael: i'm not convinced that it's a problem at this early stage of the 2016 cycle. if this conversation is happening in october 2016, that is perhaps more problematic. the polling on this is not entirely clear. i think mr. perkins is right in the sense that the issue of gay marriage is separate from this issue of religious liberty and religious freedom. the challenge for republicans is to make that distinction and make that argument. i found it interesting that he says basically governor pence was unprepared for the backlash to the indiana law. he gave, i think, mr. perkins gave an answer that had mr.

pence given that on abc news, perhaps we would be talking about this issue and a lot of different ways. this is something that i think republicans -- there was a poll that showed that 58% of americans believe that a baker should not have to bake a cake for a gay wedding if it goes against their sincerely held beliefs. i think this is something that republicans could harness. in particular, because i believe there is a silent majority out there. it seems to be going really fast and in ways to contradict ways that they view the country, and waste that the country should work. paul: i have to say, i still think that people who are energized about religious freedom as an issue is a fairly's fairly small minority of this point.

people do not feel afflicted in their own religious persuasion. by and large they feeling they , are able to carry out religion in this country freely. they don't feel that is a primary issue when it is up against things like wars and guns. it's more personal concern . greta: that is interesting. given that this week rand paul will announce that he is running in 2016, amid this debate there -- that is happening about religious freedom. i doesn't sound like you think both of you think, that this is that big of a factor for the 2016 contender. you heard his response about rand paul, who he is not worried about, or thinks he will get those people who care about religious freedom anyway. paul: if you open up the file drawer that is labeled "social issues," it is a huge it issue for 2016.

i am not sure the religious freedom act of indiana occupies more than a small file in that drawer. it is going to be another reason for conversation as to who exactly is out of touch with the american people. which side. michael: i think a republican candidate who took on this issue in a smart and very judicious way could make that file a lot bigger. in fact, help with the republican weakness on gay marriage by saying, republicans understand that the country is not with us on this issue -- maybe they won't say that exquisitely, but they could mine an american viewpoint on the free exercise of religion that in their view may be under assault. paul: and you could bring other issues into that. i think that is smart. greta: we will have to leave it there now. paul singer with "usa today," and michael warren of "the weekly standard," thanks for being with us.