• Constitutional protections for religious freedom provide a backstop, but clear statutory rules help avoid conflicts and costly litigation

• Several bills before the Utah legislature extend practical religious freedom protections to higher education, health care conscience rights, and other fields

• Given instability or inaction in Washington, D.C., state-level leadership is essential in religious freedom

In recent years, Utah has established a series of legal provisions intended to protect religious freedom in specific scenarios, such as school sports and public employment. This session, the legislature is considering bills that would provide similar protections in other contexts. These bills would create greater security for people of faith and religious organizations, and their effects would benefit the entire community. 

At the outset, it is worth considering why the State might need statutory protections for religious freedom when that right is protected by federal and State constitutional provisions. 

One way to think of this is to think of the constitutional provisions as establishing an aspiration and a backstop. It is clear that the Framers and Ratifiers of our constitutional religious freedom provisions wanted to ensure that people of faith and religious organizations would be protected in the exercise of their beliefs. When that does not happen, and governments limit that exercise, those who are affected must be able to seek redress. 

That process has inherent limitations, though. Not everyone can afford the expense and time commitment of litigation. Thankfully, there are attorneys and organizations that will pitch in to help, and we are all indebted to them because their efforts have established protective precedent. What we don’t know, however, is how many others quietly stepped away from jobs or educational programs because participation might have come with strings attached that were at odds with their beliefs. That result is not consistent with the purpose of the protections. 

With that in mind, we can see the current Utah Legislative proposals as an opportunity to establish clear rules and procedures that will either shorten the process of litigation or prevent it altogether. Even better, they can signal the State’s policy of accommodating religious and conscientious beliefs whenever possible so that conflicts can be avoided altogether. 

In a recent Defending Ideas podcast, we talked about some of the specific proposals. Here are three of particular note. 

One provision is directed at higher education. Building on existing requirements that universities accommodate religious conflicts in school schedules, this bill would require schools to accommodate appropriate requests by students when they are given an assignment that requires them to violate their beliefs for a required class. The bill specifically prohibits an assignment where a student is told to publicly endorse a position that is against their conscience or faith. Schools and teachers will still be free to ask their students to understand the other side of controversial issues and are specifically exempted from making a fundamental alteration in the class. 

Another bill addresses the specific context of health care. It arises from situations in other states where a nurse or other medical professional is punished for asking to not participate in procedures at odds with their beliefs, such as performing abortions. This bill accommodates these professionals while allowing individuals seeking a procedure to still access it from someone else. 

The final example is a bill that would provide protections from discrimination on the basis of religion in various other contexts. The specific contexts are credit and insurance. The laws regulating these areas currently provide that businesses cannot discriminate against individuals seeking their services on the basis of listed categories like race and sex. For some reason, they did not also list religion, and this bill would fix that. 

One more observation may be helpful. Enforcement and interpretation of religious freedom guarantees at the national level can swing with changes in presidential administration. The U.S. Congress has not been very active in this area, so States play a primary role in working to avoid imposing burdens on the faith or conscience of their citizens. Utah’s efforts will be particularly important in the event of any future shifts at the federal level, so its people will be protected, and so that Utah can serve as a model for (and learn from) other States in their efforts.