Religious Liberty Issue Explained

The issue is whether or not the State of Georgia should create a law that mirrors the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That federal law was passed almost unanimously by Congress in 1993 and signed into law by President Clinton. It mandated that the religious liberty of individuals can only be limited by the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest. It was intended to apply to federal, state, and local governments. But in 1997 the U.S. Supreme Court said it only applies to the federal government — not to states. As a result, 21 states have passed state religious liberty bills in the intervening years. 

There have been different variations introduced over the past few years, but generally speaking, the debate focuses on whether or not Georgia should have a religious liberty law that allows individuals to violate a law (including local non discrimination laws) in the name of religious conviction and use that religious liberty law as a defense. A court reviewing the case would have to determine that the state had a “compelling interest” in burdening someone’s religious liberty in passing the law and that the law was the “least restrictive means” of advancing that compelling interest. 

In extending the provisions of the federal RFRA law to the state level, RFRA would apply not just to situations where the government reaches into religious life, but also situations between individuals. In order for RFRA to be exercised in a situation between private parties, the government has to be involved. For example, if Citizen A claims discrimination by a business, the only way for Citizen A to seek relief is to go to the local government with the non discrimination law and ask the local government to enforce the law on the business. If the local government fined the business or took some enforcement action, then the business could use RFRA as a defense and the matter would go to court where the court would determine if there is a compelling state interest and the local non discrimination ordinance is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. 

Supporters of such legislation believe that a Georgia law is necessary to provide for our religious liberty that are not provided for in the federal law, along the lines of something like the baker’s cake lawsuit in Colorado that was recently struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Opponents of the bills have said that this legislation would allow discrimination that the federal law prohibits.  Governor Deal vetoed a bill that was passed two sessions ago, saying that such a law would negatively impact economic development in Georgia.  This same sentiment has been expressed by many businesses and their CEO’s of companies that are seeing significant growth in today’s economy.  Also, much has been written, said and speculated about Georgia’s film industry, but many believe that such a law would decimate our film business in Georgia and inhibit future projects from occurring in our state.