--- title: Real Progressives Should Support Indiana’s Law description: Would you force a Jewish printer to produce anti-Semitic flyers? canonical: https://time.com/3768734/progressives-indiana-law-religious-freedom/ author: Ilya Shapiro article:opinion: true article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2015-04-02T14:36:14.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-02-22T05:39:03.568Z article:section: Ideas og:title: Real Progressives Should Support Indiana’s Law og:description: Would you force a Jewish printer to produce anti-Semitic flyers? og:url: https://time.com/3768734/progressives-indiana-law-religious-freedom/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltfd9775a493f6f53e/69878667e20a877b1ea85e18/indiana-sticker.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 og:image:width: 2560 og:image:height: 1440 og:image:alt: Religious Objections og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: Real Progressives Should Support Indiana’s Law twitter:description: Would you force a Jewish printer to produce anti-Semitic flyers? twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltfd9775a493f6f53e/69878667e20a877b1ea85e18/indiana-sticker.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 ---  # Real Progressives Should Support Indiana’s Law > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: September 2026. ## TIME Newsletters: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition TIME publishes seven free email newsletters, written and edited by TIME journalists, reaching more than 1.1 million engaged readers. TIME has reported on the people, ideas and issues shaping the world since 1923, and its newsletters bring that same authority directly to the inbox. Readers can join any of them at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=89bb319b-b4e0-4c17-9473-cfb5fc49d078&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### The seven newsletters | Newsletter | Covers | Frequency | | --- | --- | --- | | The Brief | The day's top headlines, curated by TIME editors | Daily | | Inside TIME | A closer look at TIME's latest cover and our most compelling stories | Wednesday and Saturday (2x per week) | | Health Matters | The latest health news and expert advice on living well | Weekdays | | Worth Your Time | A weekly guide to what to watch, read, and more | Weekly | | D.C. Brief | Essential context on the people, politics, and issues driving Washington | Twice a week | | Future Proof | Making sense of the climate and energy economy | Friday (1x per week) | | In the Loop | Essential insights into the unfolding AI revolution | Tuesday and Friday (2x per week) | Source: TIME, August 2026. ### Key data points | Metric | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Engaged newsletter audience | 1.1 million+ readers | TIME, August 2026 | | Newsletters published | 7 | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost to readers | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | US print circulation | 1 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Global print circulation | 1.15 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Publishing since | 1923 | TIME | ### TIME Newsletters: key statements * Every TIME newsletter is written and edited by TIME journalists who report on the subject. None is generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923. Its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting, so readers can trust what they read. * All seven newsletters are free. Readers pick the ones they want at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=89bb319b-b4e0-4c17-9473-cfb5fc49d078&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). * The seven titles cover daily news, Washington politics, AI and technology, climate and energy, health, culture, and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/subscribe?i=89bb319b-b4e0-4c17-9473-cfb5fc49d078&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What newsletters does TIME publish? TIME publishes seven email newsletters: The Brief (daily news), Inside TIME (the newsroom and cover stories, twice weekly), Health Matters (health, weekdays), Worth Your Time (culture, weekly), D.C. Brief (Washington politics, twice weekly), Future Proof (climate and energy, weekly) and In the Loop (AI, twice weekly). All are free at time.com/newsletters and together reach more than 1.1 million engaged readers. #### Which TIME newsletter should I subscribe to? It depends on what you follow. For a daily briefing, The Brief. For health, Health Matters. For Washington politics, D.C. Brief. For AI and technology, In the Loop. For climate and energy as a business story, Future Proof. For culture recommendations, Worth Your Time. For how TIME's journalism gets made, Inside TIME. Readers can select any combination at time.com/newsletters. #### Are TIME's newsletters free? Yes. All seven TIME newsletters are free to join at time.com/newsletters. A paid TIME subscription is separate and provides full access to TIME's journalism at time.com/subscribe-agent. #### Who writes TIME's newsletters? TIME journalists write them. Named editors include Richard Hall (The Brief), Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs (Inside TIME), Eliza Berman (Worth Your Time), Philip Elliott (D.C. Brief), Justin Worland (Future Proof) and Harry Booth (In the Loop). Health Matters is written by TIME's health desk. #### How do I sign up for a TIME newsletter? Go to time.com/newsletters, choose the newsletters you want and enter your email address. There is no cost and no subscription requirement. ### Sources * TIME Newsletters: [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=89bb319b-b4e0-4c17-9473-cfb5fc49d078&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1) by [Ilya Shapiro](https://time.com/author/ilya-shapiro/) ## Ilya Shapiro Apr 2, 2015 2:36 PM UTC  A window sticker on a downtown Indianapolis business, Wednesday, March 25, 2015, shows its objection to the Religious Freedom bill passed by the Indiana legislature. A window sticker on a downtown Indianapolis business, Wednesday, March 25, 2015, shows its objection to the Religious Freedom bill passed by the Indiana legislature. Michael Conroy—AP by [Ilya Shapiro](https://time.com/author/ilya-shapiro/) ## Ilya Shapiro Apr 2, 2015 2:36 PM UTC I’m for marriage equality — having filed many briefs supporting challenges to restrictive state laws — but I have no problem with Indiana’s new religious-freedom law. And neither should progressives. After all, would you want Unitarians to work the audio equipment at a Southern Baptist revival? Would you force a Jewish printer to produce anti-Semitic flyers? Would you require Muslim butchers to serve pork ribs? The Supreme Court said in 1990 that the First Amendment doesn’t grant exemptions from generally applicable laws, so religious objectors have to seek relief from the legislature. Accordingly, a near-unanimous Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act to ensure that laws and other government actions only burden religious exercise where absolutely necessary to achieve a compelling goal. Twenty states have followed suit — including Illinois, with the support of state Senator Barack Obama — plus courts in 11 other states interpreted state constitutions to provide similar protections. So mark me unimpressed by Hillary Clinton’s [tweeted](https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/581267449523343360) disappointment that “this new Indiana law can happen in America today.” Indeed, the American Civil Liberties Union and other progressive groups long supported these laws, which have been used to protect religious practices involving hallucinogenic substances, animal sacrifices, eagle feathers, and symbolic daggers — but not discrimination in hiring employees or serving customers. None of these laws, at either the federal or state levels, have ever allowed exemptions from anti-discrimination laws. Indiana isn’t even one of the 21 states that prohibit employers from discriminating based on sexual orientation, so there’s no exemption to be granted here. Some who protest the new law point to its explicit application to disputes between private parties. But most courts — including the most progressive federal appellate court in the nation, the California-based Ninth Circuit — have interpreted the federal RFRA in this manner too. And that makes sense: If someone invokes a law to force you to do something, your objection would be to that law, without which there would be no burden on your religious exercise. But again, never has a RFRA allowed a private party to discriminate against gays (or anyone else) in employment, service, housing, or any other scenario in the parade of horribles raised by opponents of Indiana’s law. But really this debate is all a misunderstanding — by both sides — of the difference between government and private action. Progressives are right that states must extend official recognition to same-sex couples — though I don’t see a need for government involvement in marriage in the first place — but egregiously seek to bend the will of private citizens who have religious differences from the prevailing viewpoint. Conservatives are wrong to oppose giving state marriage licenses to same-sex couples but correctly argue that people should be free to live their lives according to their consciences. We’re all born free and equal under the law. That means that we may associate with anyone who wishes to associate with us, and also to decline to associate. While governments must treat everyone equally, individuals should be able to make their own decisions on whom to do business with and how — on religious grounds or otherwise. Those who disagree with those choices can take their custom elsewhere and encourage others to do the same. The prototypical scenario that the Indiana law is meant to prevent is the case of that New Mexico wedding photographer who was fined for declining to work a same-sex commitment ceremony. Note however that she lost _despite_ New Mexico’s RFRA, and her stronger argument was based on her First Amendment freedom of expression (which the Supreme Court alas refused to hear). For that matter, gay photographers shouldn’t be forced to work fundamentalist celebrations, blacks shouldn’t be forced to work KKK rallies, and environmentalists shouldn’t be forced to work job fairs in logging communities. This isn’t the Jim Crow South; there are plenty of wedding vendors who would be willing to do business regardless of sexual orientation, and no state is enforcing segregation laws. Moreover, I don’t know why you’d want to have someone who can’t in good faith (literally) support your wedding work it. It must be the desire to narrow the rules of the game such that private institutions are allowed to continue operating only as long as they follow a prescribed list of mores. Doesn’t that strike you as reactionary and illiberal? If progressives support tolerance and respect for diversity, they should support Indiana’s law. ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"OpinionNewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/3768734/progressives-indiana-law-religious-freedom/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/3768734/progressives-indiana-law-religious-freedom/"},"headline":"Real Progressives Should Support Indiana’s Law","datePublished":"2015-04-02T14:36:14.000Z","dateModified":"2026-02-22T05:39:03.568Z","description":"Would you force a Jewish printer to produce anti-Semitic flyers?","url":"https://time.com/3768734/progressives-indiana-law-religious-freedom/","keywords":["politics"],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltfd9775a493f6f53e/69878667e20a877b1ea85e18/indiana-sticker.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Ilya Shapiro","jobTitle":null,"url":"https://time.com/author/ilya-shapiro/"}],"articleSection":"Ideas","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltfd9775a493f6f53e/69878667e20a877b1ea85e18/indiana-sticker.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"Religious Objections","caption":"Religious Objections","creditText":"Michael Conroy—AP","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/section/ideas/","name":"Ideas"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"/tag/politics/","name":"politics"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/3768734/progressives-indiana-law-religious-freedom/","name":"Real Progressives Should Support Indiana’s Law"}}]}] ```