If enacted, SB2732 will primarily impact how religious institutions respond to state-issued health and safety measures during emergencies. By categorizing such governmental directives as a 'substantial burden', the bill could potentially empower places of worship to challenge these measures in court on the grounds of infringement upon their religious freedoms. This shift could lead to significant legal implications regarding the balance between public health mandates and the right to practice religion freely.
Summary
SB2732, introduced by Senator Adriane Johnson, aims to amend the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by altering how governmental orders or regulations are viewed concerning the closure or limitation of places of worship. The bill stipulates that any directive issued by a governmental entity in the event of an emergency or based on health and safety determinations that affects a place of worship entitled to religious exemptions must be considered a substantial burden on that religious practice. This definition holds regardless of whether the directive is general in nature or specifically targeted at places of worship.
Contention
The potential for contention surrounding SB2732 lies in the interpretation and application of what constitutes a 'substantial burden'. Critics worry that this amendment could interfere with necessary public health responses that aim to protect the wider community from communicable diseases or other emergencies by granting religious entities undue leeway to bypass health regulations. Supporters of the bill, however, argue that it is crucial for protecting religious freedoms and ensuring that state actions do not unjustifiably hinder the ability of individuals to worship, especially during crises.