Before the Vote, Ask the Religious Freedom Question

When lawmakers introduce a bill, they ask what it will cost, whom it will help and whether it can pass. They should also ask a question that too often waits until someone files a lawsuit: What will this require a person or employer of faith to do?

That question belongs at the beginning of the legislative process. Once a mandate is in place, a Christian employer may have to choose between following a deeply held conviction and complying with a government requirement. Religious liberty disputes are not rare hypotheticals. Attorneys are handling them now, while employers and families bear the cost of resolving conflicts that lawmakers could have considered before a bill passed.

Congress recognized this problem when it enacted the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. A law can burden religious exercise even when its authors did not set out to target religion. Many states have adopted their own protections. But the existence of those protections does not relieve legislators of the responsibility to consider religious consequences while they still have the power to revise a bill.

This is a practical question for lawmakers in both parties. A proposal about employment, health coverage, public contracts or professional licensing may serve a stated public goal and still impose an avoidable burden on religious exercise. What conduct would the bill require? Who would be affected? Could the goal be achieved in a way that leaves room for people and organizations to live according to their faith?

Christian employers have particular reason to ask. Their beliefs shape how they serve employees, customers and communities. Faith may be reflected in an organization’s mission, hiring practices, benefits or standards of conduct. These are decisions made in the course of running a business, school, ministry or nonprofit, not beliefs left at the door when the workday begins.

Lawmakers will not learn how a proposal affects those decisions simply by reading a fiscal note or hearing from the largest interests in an industry. They need to hear from the employers who would have to carry out the law. Some can speak publicly. Others have sound reasons to describe a concern privately. Both deserve to be heard before the final language is set.

A religious freedom review should make legislation better. Before a committee advances a bill, its sponsors can ask whether it burdens religious exercise, which existing protections apply and whether a narrower approach would accomplish the same goal. State lawmakers should examine the protections in their own state, rather than assume federal law answers every state question.

Those questions may reveal a simple fix. A definition could be clarified. An exemption could be written into the bill. A requirement could be tailored more closely to the problem lawmakers intend to solve. In other cases, disagreement will remain, and legislators will need to explain their reasoning to the people they represent. Either outcome is better than discovering the conflict only after the law takes effect.

Christian employers are asking lawmakers to take religious freedom seriously enough to consider it before voting. That standard should protect the ability of people of every faith to bring their convictions into public life.

Our elected officials should be able to answer a straightforward question about every consequential bill: Did you ask how this would affect religious exercise, and what did you do with the answer? The Christian voice deserves to be heard while that answer can still shape the law.