Written by Don Byrd
Arizona 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.
Think Progress has more:
Yarbrough’s bill…is so sweeping that religious belief could be used to defend any form of discrimination that would otherwise be protected under law, including gender. He acknowledged to reporter Howard Fischer that his bill could be used to discriminate against not only gay people, but also unmarried women, or people with different religious beliefs, as examples. It’s possible that his bill could actually allow religion to be used to justify breaking nearly any law in Arizona. Yarbrough simply trusts that protections that have been traditionally recognized before would still be protected were his bill to become law.
To be fair, I don’t believe the bill “could actually allow religion to be used to justify breaking nearly any law in Arizona.” The law still requires a substantial burden (though it waters down the definition somewhat) on activity substantially motivated by religious belief before religious freedom rights are implicated. It allows the government to demonstrate a compelling interest in enforcing the law, which would defeat the RFRA defense. Those are significant limitations on the ability to avoid a state’s laws. This is, however, a sweeping change that could greatly embolden the right to refuse compliance with the law on religious grounds.
Yarbrough was successful in an attempt last year to pass a measure with a similar objective, but the Governor vetoed it.
