House Bill 47 seeks to codify language surrounding religious protections at the state and local level — dealing with legal standards for circumstances in which a person claims that government action has restricted their exercise of religion.
Alliance Defending Freedom's Greg Chafuen said of the bill: "It doesn't pick winners and losers. Everybody can bring their fair day in court and the courts will judge what is the religious interest involved here, and then if they can show a burden on a sincerely-held religious practice, then it goes to the government side to say do you have a compelling government interest to enforce that law."
Yet skeptics worried aloud the bill would allow all state and local laws, administrative regulations, and ordinances — including Fairness Ordinances — to be subverted by anyone claiming a violation of their religious freedom. Opponents argue the bill expands definitions to the point where private individuals could take each other to court over religious freedom complaints.
"This broad expansion, to me, is concerning because not every person who is a law-abiding citizen attempting to follow the laws should be hauled into court as a respondent," Lexington Democratic Rep. Lindsey Burke said. "If they're following the law and the issue is the law, then the Commonwealth ought to be the respondent."
While bill supporters maintain similar laws have worked well in other states, opponents say HB 47 could invite frivolous lawsuits and erode civil rights protections.
