Ballard: 'Religious freedom' bill sends 'wrong signal'

Republican Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard says passage of the "religious freedom" bill sends the "wrong signal" for the state and city.

"Indianapolis strives to be a welcoming place that attracts businesses, conventions, visitors and residents," Ballard said Wednesday in a statement. "We are a diverse city, and I want everyone who visits and lives in Indy to feel comfortable here."

Ballard's statement comes a day after Gen Con, the city's largest convention in attendance and economic impact, threatened to move the event elsewhere if Republican Gov. Mike Pence follows through on his promise to sign the bill into law.

Large Republican majorities in the Indiana House and Senate voted to send the measure to Pence.

Meanwhile, two big names in Indiana Republican political circles are staying silent on Senate Bill 101, which could provide legal protection for business owners who don't want to provide services for same-sex couples.

Press officers for former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels and former U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar say both men declined to comment on the measure.

Daniels vowed when he became Purdue University's president to stay away from political issues.

Indiana political analyst Andy Downs said Daniels, who as a sitting governor weighing a presidential run called for truce on social issues, also now finds himself in politically awkward position.

Downs said that if Daniels comments in favor of the bill, it would surely alienate the liberal faculty at his school, which also has strong anti-discrimination policies in place.

Large Republican majorities in the Indiana House and Senate voted to send the measure to Pence.

Meanwhile, two big names in Indiana Republican political circles are staying silent on Senate Bill 101, which could provide legal protection for business owners who don't want to provide services for same-sex couples.

Press officers for former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels and former U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar say both men declined to comment on the measure.

Daniels vowed when he became Purdue University's president to stay away from political issues.

Indiana political analyst Andy Downs said Daniels, who as a sitting governor weighing a presidential run called for truce on social issues, also now finds himself in politically awkward position.

Downs said that if Daniels comments in favor of the bill, it would surely alienate the liberal faculty at his school, which also has strong anti-discrimination policies in place.

On the other hand, if Daniels speaks out against the bill, Down said, he risks alienating current Republican Gov. Pence, who has a "good relationship" with Daniels and who remains a staunch backer of several of Daniels' key initiatives.

Plus, should Daniels ever decide to run for office again, he risks irking hardline conservative Republicans if he speaks out against the bill.

"He's in a no-win situation," Downs said.

As for Lugar, Downs said that whatever the moderate Republican's views might be on SB 101, it's never been his style to be critical of his own party in the media.

Instead, Downs said, Lugar came from a generation of senators that strove to civilly influence his peers behind the scenes.

Meanwhile, The Star has reached out to the five Indiana House Republicans who voted against the bill on Monday.

State Rep. Cindy Kirchhofer of Indianapolis was one of the five.

She said that she voted against the SB 101 because 75 percent of the calls, emails and letters she received from the constituents in her moderate district told her that she should vote against it.

While she says she personally could see "no clear, convincing evidence" the bill was needed, she said that on social issues such as this, it's her district's call.

"I don't vote my conscience," she said. "I vote the will of the district."

After the Indiana Senate on Tuesday approved the House version of the bill on a party-line vote, the hot-button legislation now seems certain to become law.

SB 101 prevents state and local governments from "substantially burdening" a person's exercise of religion unless the government can prove it has a "compelling interest" and is doing so in the "least restrictive" means.

Supporters say the measure would protect people and business owners with strong religious beliefs from government intrusion.

Opponents say it would license discrimination, particularly against gays and lesbians.

Call Star reporter Ryan Sabalow at (317) 444-6179. Follow him on Twitter: @ryansabalow.