SB1062 would amend the Arizona RFRA to address two ambiguities that have been the subject of litigation under other RFRAs. It would provide that people are covered when state or local government requires them to violate their religion in the conduct of their business, and it would provide that people are covered when sued by a private citizen invoking state or local law to demand that they violate their religion.
But nothing in the amendment would say who wins in either of these cases. The person invoking RFRA would still have to prove that he had a sincere religious belief and that state or local government was imposing a substantial burden on his exercise of that religious belief. And the government, or the person on the other side of the lawsuit, could still show that compliance with the law was necessary to serve a compelling government interest. As a business gets bigger and more impersonal, courts will become more skeptical about claims of substantial burden on the owner’s exercise of religion. And as a business gets bigger, the government’s claim of compelling interest will become stronger.
Prof. Mary Ann Glendon
Harvard Law SchoolProf. Michael W. McConnell
Stanford Law SchoolProfessor Thomas C. Berg
University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota)Prof. Richard W. Garnett
Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of LawRobin Fretwell Wilson
University of Illinois College of LawProf. Douglas Laycock
University of Virginia School of LawProf. Helen M. Alvaré
George Mason University School of LawProf. Carl H. Esbeck
University of Missouri School of LawProf. Christopher C. Lund
Wayne State University Law SchoolProf. Gregory C. Sisk
University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota)
More analysis and critique of the dominant narrative:
http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/issuesetc.org/podcast/14800228141.mp3