Written by Don ByrdArizona State Representative Steve Yarborough has proposed legislation (pdf) that would authorize broad rights to discriminate against others based on religious belief by amending the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act provision. The law currently prohibits the government from substantially burdening a person’s religious exercise unless it is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. Yarbrough’s amendments specify that RFRA can be a defense in any “state action,” regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding (so, a lawsuit by another individual, for example). It also redefines “person” to include corporations and “any legal entity.”
The move seems to be in response to circumstances in which vendors like photographers, florists and cake-makers have been sued under state anti-discrimination laws after refusing to serve customers’ same-sex weddings.
By BJC Staff Reports
Twenty years after the landmark Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was signed into law, a day-long symposium examined the current state of religious liberty in America.
From the November/December Report from the Capital
By BJC Staff Reports
A Nov. 7 symposium celebrated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 as a singular legislative accomplishment and explored contemporary controversies regarding the free exercise of religion.
From the November/December Report from the Capital
Written by Don ByrdOhio state representatives have proposed a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. If adopted, it would make Ohio the 18th state with such a law. Generally, RFRA statutes (which have some small but significant variations from state to state) allow government to substantially burden a person’s religion only if a compelling reason requires it.The idea is to protect citizens from the neutral laws of the state that happen to impact their faith.
Written by Don ByrdThe Pentecostal tradition of snake-handling goes back several generations in Appalachia. Adherents believe God requires them to hold poisonous snakes as a test of their faith that they will be protected. In Tennessee, the practice is under renewed scrutiny pursuant to state laws that prohibit the possession of rattlesnakes and other dangerous wildlife. Charged with an offense for keeping dozens of such snakes, Andrew Hamblin argues the First Amendment protects his right to practice this brand of faith.
