or mini rfras. there's a disturbing correlation between that and the passage, for example, in indiana of gay marriage. so does that suggest that perhaps the focus on rfra has something to do with factors other than those that are being articulated by the plaintiffs? >> what was the last part of your question? >> being articulated by the opponents of the rfras. >> no. as soon as the '97 decision came down, states started to adopt rfras. over 30 states now have religious protections that were rfra like, so many states felt they did not need to have a rfra protection in their state. also, there was a sister legislation. we're so nerdy. we're talking with all these acrony acronyms. for a cuban to say that quickly and without tripping, it's quite the feet. it also protected, but to your point, greg, of who benefits from these religious freedom restoration acts, the department of interior sent covert agents that went into his family pow wow because they heard he had eagle feathers. there's an eagle feathe

. >> i did say rfra. when i'm at church, if i want to pray with only people of the same race and religion and sexual orientation, i can do that. but if i open a lunch counter or i'm a caterer, even if i devoutly believe interracial marriage is wrong, i still can't turn away that couple. at the end of the day, i think we need to recognize there are other people out there too and religious beliefs are extremely important and extremely deeply held and extremely devout. but in a country based on secular card, they're not a trump card. it's an important limiting principle that is necessary to balance everyone's rights. >> can i add one point? i agree strongly that a democracy is designed for disagreement, but it is undermined by mutual contempt. emphasis on civility, empathy, is an important part of this discussion. i was just in salt lake city, utah, talking with some church officials. and they really did attempt a process by which church officials met with gay rights activists and legislators in a difficult

objectors don't think it is unlawful under rfra no matter what plan you have.there is a couple of courts that suggested, dissenting opinion in one that concluded it made a difference but it is not something any of the, the parties think. there is also an interesting aspect, little sisters petition also presents a separate question whether this is unconstitutional even if it doesn't violate rfra, not just a straight up religious freedom exercise. actually a question about whether the government's decision to discriminate essentially among religious employers and completely allow churches to opt out while not allowing other, basically entity ies not officially associated with church or house of worship to opt out is itself unconstitutional because the government shouldn't be drawing lines which religious objections it will accommodate and which it is not. that is another aspect here. that has not been issue gotten principle attention in the courts below. but it is an issue gotten a lot of attention from amici suggested in a lot of briefings. it is possible that t

. >> kentucky has something many viewers might not be aware of, the rfra which states that it requires government agencies to exempt religious objectors from generally applicable laws unless it's restrictive means. she argues because of that she had a right to challenge this but based on the law. >> yeah, look, she's an agent of the state. she's been accommodated five out of six of her deputy clerks went for it without her name attached to this. she can simply step aside and the allow the operation of the clerk's office to go forward and contain religious liberties as an individual but not as an agent of the state. the united states supreme court made that crystal clear. as they have in case after case in the past from loving versus the state of virginia, just imagine it took 33 years before alaba alabama had the entsbe inner ra marriage decision. we'll let the states decide. just consider the interracial marriages. that went to the supreme court in 1967 and the judge said god put different races on different coninnocents for a reason, god never wanted the races to mix. it was an absur