My dear brothers and sisters in Christ:

There has been a lot of incorrect and misleading information about recent legislation in Indiana and Arkansas designed to protect religious freedom. Gay-rights activists have wrongfully characterized these laws as providing a license to discriminate against homosexual people. In fact, the state Religious Freedom Restoration Act adopted recently in Indiana and Arkansas is modeled on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)adopted by Congress with nearly unanimous bipartisan support in both the United States House and Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993.

The U.S. Congress passed RFRA in 1993 in response to a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court (called Employment Division v. Smith) that made it more difficult for religious believers to challenge laws that affected their ability to live out their faith. The Smith case involved Native Americans who were fired from their jobs because they used peyote as part of their religion. People of all faiths and all political persuasions came together to ask Congress to pass a law that would, in effect, reverse the Smith decision. Americans simply wanted a return to the deference that the law had given to the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment of our Constitution, prior to the Smith decision. RFRA sailed through an otherwise divided Congress and was signed by President Clinton.

From 1993 to 1997, the federal RFRA applied to actions by both the federal government and state governmental entities. But in 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that RFRA could not apply to state government actions. In response, many states passed their own versions of RFRA that would apply within their states. To date, about 20 states have passed such legislation. An additional 11 states have state court decisions interpreting their state constitutions to provide similar protection. Hence, at this point, the federal government, the District of Columbia, and more than 30 of the 50 states have provided, in one form or another, protections for religious freedom similar to RFRA.

Illinois adopted its RFRA law in 1998 with support from then-state Sen. Barack Obama. The federal RFRA and its state counterparts have worked well to provide appropriate protections for people of faith who seek to live out their faith in daily life. RFRA provides a balancing test when the government attempts to restrict the free exercise of religion.

RFRA does not automatically allow people not to comply with laws of general applicability simply by claiming that they are contrary to their religious beliefs. There are two safeguards built into RFRA laws. First, a burden on religious exercise must be "substantial" — mere inconvenience or increased cost will not do. The classic case is when a matter of conscience is at stake. Many RFRA claims fail on this basis. Second, the burden is still permitted if the government can show that the burden represents the means "least restrictive" of religious exercise to serve a "compelling government interest." These are highly fact-specific inquiries, and so broad statements about what the law will forbid or allow are simply misplaced. Sometimes the religious believer will win, and sometimes the religious believer will lose, but RFRA provides a better framework to make sure all competing interests receive due consideration.

Members of minority faiths have been the primary beneficiaries of federal and state RFRAs. A recent example of a case involving RFRA was in June 2014 when the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the federal government violated RFRA when it attempted to force family-owned businesses like Hobby Lobby to provide abortion-inducing drugs in their employee health plans. Hobby Lobby's owners had faced the choice of violating their Christian faith or paying onerous fines.

Sometimes, strongly held religious beliefs that are considered in the mainstream more broadly — such as the view that marriage can only be the union of one man and one woman — have fallen into the minority in some local contexts. As a result, local laws have been passed to penalize conduct based on those deeply-held beliefs with insufficient religious exemption, and sometimes none at all. Recent examples, particularly in the context of marriage, include a florist in Washington State, a photographer in New Mexico, and bakers in Colorado and Oregon. Their conscientious objections to state or local antidiscrimination laws do not amount to "unjust discrimination," and in fact, rightly deserve the strong protection of the law. Without RFRA, they are unprotected, but with RFRA, they have a fair opportunity to make their case. Although they should win, there is no guarantee they will under RFRA; but at least they will have their day in court. This is not a "license to discriminate," but instead a reasonable attempt to achieve fairness for all.

May God give us this grace. Amen.