Written by Don Byrd
Last week, I posted about Kentucky House Bill 279, legislation raising the level of judicial scrutiny for government action placing a burden on religious exercise. If this bill becomes law, enforcing a law against an individual whose religious exercise is burdened by it will require the government to demonstrate a compelling interest.
On Friday the Commonwealth’s House passed the measure 82-7. Here’s one description from the Lexington Herald-Leader:
Rep. Bob Damron, D-Nicholasville, the sponsor of HB 279, said the measure would further clarify religious freedoms in state law. Thirteen other states have similar laws. The federal government enacted a religious-freedom bill in 1993.
Damron said the bill was needed because of recent state and U.S. Supreme Court cases that have changed the way religious freedom is interpreted.
It is true that the federal government and several states have *similar* laws. There is a key difference that’s important, however, and which has gone unmentioned in most coverage. Where the federal law and most state laws (called RFRAs) require the burden on religious exercise to be “substantial” before a compelling government interest must be shown, Kentucky’s proposed law places that high standard on any burden.
Is that a big difference? Yes. So big, in fact, that the Baptist Joint Committee, which supported and helped make law the federal version, has opposed versions without the substantial burden language. In the earlier post, I quoted the BJC’s Nan Futrell explaining why that is so important. It’s worth a read.
The bill now moves to the Senate.
