Written by Don Byrd
Georgia Speaker of the House David Ralston (R-Blue Ridge) will apparently be hitting the law books before deciding his view of proposed legislation that is similar to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Last year, the Georgia legislature defeated a similar effort after business leaders and religious liberty advocates including the Baptist Joint Committee opposed the bill. This year, Ralston says he is going to investigate whether the bill is really necessary.
During a pre-legislative session news conference Thursday, Ralston, R-Blue Ridge, said religious freedom was important enough to America’s founders that they included it in the U.S. Constitution.
But he questioned whether the General Assembly has anything worthwhile to add to the subject.
“What I’m going to look at is what does this bill do that the Constitution doesn’t do?” the speaker said. “I want to understand the intensity of the opposition.”
The federal RFRA does indeed add a layer of protection for religious exercise that is not embedded in the Constitution. But while Ralston is researching, he should also inquire into what, if anything, the Georgia bill would do that the federal RFRA does not. Last year’s effort in Georgia simply went too far beyond the careful balance achieved in the federal law.
RFRA laws can be helpful in supporting individuals whose religious exercise needs are unexpectedly and substantially burdened by government action. But those laws should be carefully structured to balance against the interests of the government, and should take effect only when the burden on religion is substantial. RFRA laws should not allow religion to become a trump card against government regulation.
