Written by Don Byrd
Arizona’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) has been law for several years. The state’s RFRA echoes the federal bill of the same name, requiring the government to demonstrate a compelling state interest to justify substantial burdens on religious exercise. Some lawmakers in Arizona have decided that high standard of scrutiny does not go far enough in protecting free exercise. SB 1178 as passed by the House alters the definitions to many important words and phrases in RFRA.
On to the Senate for consideration, the bill maintains the “substantial burden” requirement, despite efforts to remove it. Among other alterations, the changes would explicitly allow a lawsuit to be filed for “impending violation(s)” of RFRA. This potential expansion of claims doesn’t sit well with some.
“I’m still concerned,” Representative Chad Campbell stated. “While you may not be encouraging litigation … I think you are opening the door for litigation that is probably unnecessary and burdensome, especially for small businesses.”
Some Republicans also opposed the legislation, opining that it may make the right to sue too broad.
…
The Center for Arizona Policy, however, believes that the bill is vital in protecting people of faith from being forced to violate their convictions.
A “compelling government interest” requirement is the highest standard of judicial scrutiny there is. My question: What exactly is the problem with RFRA’s current protection that calls for changes?
