The Impact of State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts: An Analysis of the Interpretive Case Law
![handle is hein.journals/wflr52 and id is 611 raw text is:
THE IMPACT OF STATE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
RESTORATION ACTS: AN ANALYSIS OF THE
INTERPRETIVE CASE LAW
Lucien J. Dhooge*
Some courts may turn [a statutory] shield for religious exercise
into a sword against civil rights.'
So far [state RFRAs] are the dog that has not barked.2
INTRODUCTION
On March 16, 2016, the Georgia General Assembly passed House
Bill 757, the so-called Free Exercise Protection Act.3 H.B. 757 (the
Bill) included three sections relating to clergy, faith-based
organizations, and religious expression.4 The Bill was subject to
heated debate between critics and supporters. Critics described the
Bill as an effort to perpetuate second-class citizenship for some of our
fellow Georgians--specifically, the LGBTQ+ community-and
pointed to the Bill's failure to identify harms necessitating legislative
* Sue and John Staton Professor of Law and Ethics, Scheller College of
Business, Georgia Institute of Technology. The author thanks Rachel Cook and
Utena Yang for their time and effort devoted to this article.
1. Religious Liberty Protection Act of 1999: Hearing Before the Subcomm.
on the Constitution of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 106th Cong. 81 (1999)
(testimony submitted by the American Civil Liberties Union).
2. Christopher C. Lund, Religious Liberty After Gonzales: A Look at State
RFRAs, 55 S.D. L. REV. 466, 469 (2010).
3. H.B. 757, 154th Leg., Reg. Sess. §§ 2, 4-6 (Ga. 2016); see Aaron Gould
Sheinin & Kristina Torres, Religious Rights Bill Passes, ATLANTA J. CONST., Mar.
17, 2016, at Al.
4. See Ga. H.B. 757 (immunizing clergy from civil claims and state penalties
arising from their refusal to solemnize any marriage or administer any
sacrament based upon the free exercise of religion; immunizing faith-based
organizations from civil claims and state penalties arising from decisions
relating to the use of their property and the provision of social, educational, and
charitable services based upon a sincerely held religious belief; and prohibiting
the government from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion even
if the burden was the result of a law of general applicability absent a compelling
governmental interest which was furthered by least restrictive means).
585](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/wflr52&div=26&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
The Impact of State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts: An Analysis of the Interpretive Case Law
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most