Among the most important reasons religious freedom has gone from a widely accepted value to a contested one is because it has tragically “been used by some to hurt others … to divide people and not bind them together,” in the words of federal Judge Thomas Griffith. Some conflicts may arise, but often these are avoidable with an effort to accommodate the needs of people of faith and others who might be impacted by their religious exercise.

One such approach to advancing religious freedom involves using legislation to overcome related conflicts. In an essay last year, I wrote:

Rather than opposing legislative compromise and gambling on the judiciary to forever protect religious expression, the new approach would preserve religious freedom as an aspiration by reducing opportunities for conflict between the freedom of people of faith and religious organizations to act on their beliefs, and the interests of those who feel limited by or discriminated against by the actions of those who profess faith.

This approach requires states to actively seek opportunities to create targeted accommodations where they are needed in various areas of the law. Then, eschewing a zero-sum approach that pits secular interests and religious interests against one another, these accommodations are enacted in the law.

The alternative is our current system where the religious exercise of religious organizations or people of faith is burdened by a government action and a lawsuit ensues. Such lawsuits, while an important backstop to protect religious minorities, are expensive, time-consuming, reactive, and unlikely to prevent the diverse range of potential conflicts leading to unnecessary restrictions on religious freedom.

A particularly sensitive area of public policy is adoptive placements. Our society has a special responsibility to facilitate safe and permanent adoptive placements of vulnerable children. Much of that important work is done by licensed private agencies, many of whom participate because of a religious motivation to care for those in need.

A bill pending in the Utah Legislature, SB 154, aims to protect the adoption placement system in the state. It protects the wishes of birth mothers in adoptive placements and aims to reduce unnecessary costs.

It also protects the interests of religious agencies and those who want to adopt but who might be limited in doing so if relying solely on agencies with religious missions.

The substitute bill creates a “consortium” made up of all licensed agencies providing adoption placement services in the state. Some of the agencies operate consistent with religious missions that could limit what placements they may be able to make (for instance, an agency may have a policy of placing a child with a married mother and father). Other agencies will have different or no limitations. So, an individual working with the consortium will be accommodated by at least one agency and no one will be denied services or face the uncomfortable situation of being turned away by an agency.

It is like a market with a variety of vendors providing different services. Most things a person wants will be available in the market, but not all vendors have to offer every service.

Of course, the bill does this without changing any of the safeguards of child safety in the current adoption laws.

Some of the provisions of the bill relating to adoption will likely continue to change as the legislative process continues but the core religious freedom balancing is worthy of support.

Some of the benefits of the approach taken in SB 154 are clear. It addresses a potential conflict between religious freedom and other important rights before it arises. It also formally brings Utah’s statutes into alignment with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that states cannot single out religious child placement agencies for disfavored treatment.

Beyond this, though, it accomplishes these goals while avoiding unnecessary denials of services to people with different faith commitments or who desire to be helped by agencies without religious missions. It also avoids confrontations that have the potential of making an individual feel humiliated and demeaned or an agency threatened. In short, it serves the common good rather than a narrow, purely partisan or exclusive ideological interest.

As with the pending HB 163, with this legislation Utah is leading out in proactively protecting religious freedom, the interests of nonreligious people, and avoiding unnecessary litigation. This approach to advancing religious freedom follows the spirit of past Utah efforts, such as the Utah nondiscrimination law, to find the common good in religious freedom. Conflicts over adoption placement have arisen in other states, but Utah is leading the way by providing an example that could be emulated by other states. SB 154 offers a sound policy approach to adoption, religious freedom and principled pluralism.