This browser does not support the Video element.
Religious leaders push back against Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Today, a diverse group of pastors, rabbis and others held a news conference at the Georgia State Capitol urging lawmakers not to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. If passed, the bill would prohibit state and local governments from "burdening" a person's free exercise of religion.
ATLANTA - A small, diverse group of religious leaders met at the state Capitol Wednesday to speak out against the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act," also known as RFRA.
"Georgia is no place for hate," said state Sen. Kim Jackson, D-Stone Mountain, who is also an Episcopal priest. "The RFRA bill essentially legalizes discrimination."
The bill's primary sponsor, state Sen. Ed Setzler, R-Acworth, said that is simply not true.
"All we're doing is adopting federal law and applying it at the state and local level. That's all we do," said Sen. Setzler. "This isn't controversial."
A diverse group of religious leaders who oppose the bill say it allows for discrimination.
Congress adopted a RFRA law in 1993, but it does not apply to states because of a 1997 Supreme Court ruling.
"99% of Georgians believe the protections that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act provide are already provided to them. You know, we have protections from the federal government intruding on our basic religious freedoms, but there really is no protection from state and local government," Sen. Setzler explained.
Georgia lawmakers approved a RFRA bill back in 2016, but then-Governor Nathan Deal vetoed the measure, citing concerns about discrimination.
Sen. Setzler said this bill is very different from the 2016 legislation.
"The bill in 2016 had considerably more language in it. It had whole other sections," Sen. Setzler explained.
The bill's primary sponsor, state Sen. Ed Setzler, R-Acworth
The current legislation reads: "Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion."
The bill does, however, provide what Sen. Setzler described as "a balancing test:"
Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is:
- In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest
- The least restrictive means of furthering such compelling governmental interest
The bill has been assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, but has not yet been scheduled for a hearing.