Written by Don Byrd
In the newest issue of the BJC’s Report From the Capital, General Counsel K. Hollyn Hollman discusses highly controversial religious freedom legislation vetoed by the Arizona Governor because it raised discrimination concerns. The proposal and the ensuing media storm cast an unfortunate shadow on RFRA legislation.
In her column, Hollman offers reasons why the Arizona bill escalated from a proposal to strengthen religious liberty protection into a culture war clash. In this climate, she suggests, proposals like the Arizona law are likely to cause more harm than good to the cause of religious liberty.
Here is a snippet:
Underlying this story is the fact that religious freedom in the bold American constitutional tradition means religious freedom for the broadest range of religious claims, including ones that are not well-understood or well-liked. Religious freedom is popular in general — most Americans take pride in it as a distinctive feature of our Constitution. It is more difficult, however, to understand and empathize with the incredible diversity of claims and contexts in which religious conflicts arise and RFRA can be invoked.
Contrary to some reports, the Arizona legislation did not mention discrimination or any minority group. But, a growing concern for the rights of the LGBT community made even the possible future usage to discriminate more than Arizona could stand. For most people, it is difficult to see how one’s religious beliefs can legally justify discrimination against a customer based upon some minority status. The idea that such a claim could be made, regardless of the specific context (related to weddings or other religious services) was enough to taint the Arizona legislation.
Red the whole thing.
