Chuck Schumer, the New York Senator likely to take the place of Harry Reid as Democrat leader, is in denial.

For all his arguing recently that Indiana’s religious freedom law differs completely from a federal bill he co-sponsored in 1993, is for naught.

He is lying.

A report in the Daily News refutes the differences that Schumer cites in his defense.

The NYGOP writes:

Schumer made two points: first, that the 1993 law differs from the Indiana law because it contains language “to maximize the religious freedom of individuals, provided there’s no compelling government interest against it.”  There’s one problem with that: both bills contain identical – not similar, identical – language giving deference to a “compelling government interest” that can override the measure.

Schumer’s second point was that the 1993 law protects individuals, whereas Indiana’s law protects individuals and corporations.  The problem with that?  Federal law already defines a “person” to include corporations.

Douglas Laycock, a University of Virginia law professor, told the Daily News that Schumer is simply “hiding from the hysteria.”

He says both laws are identical in nature, adding certain portions are “not just substantially identical … (but) word-for-word identical.”