Religious Freedom Restoration Act passes West Virginia House

HB 3042, also known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), provides a test for courts for determining whether an individual’s religious freedom was violated by state, county or city government.

The bill would prohibit state, county or city government from treating religious conduct differently than non-religious conduct with similar risks or similar economic need or benefit. The bill applies to all laws, ordinances and statutes either being considered or already on the books.

HB 3042 allows people who believe their religious freedom has been violated by state, county or local government to file suit. The bill also set a series of bars that plaintiffs would have to meet to show that their religious freedom has been violated.

“We were always taught to respect everybody, and we need to do that,” said Del. Mark Zatezalo, R-Hancock. “We need to make sure that First Amendment actually means something and will continue to mean something.”

“Religious freedom is a right that should be guaranteed, that we should be trying to protect at all costs,” said Del. Bill Ridenour, R-Jefferson. “For my values and my beliefs, I’m going to be supporting this bill.”

Del. Mike Pushkin, D-Kanawha, attempted to offer two amendments to the bill, including an amendment that would exempt any federal, state or local non-discrimination law or ordinance.

According to Fairness West Virginia, an LGBTQ rights advocacy organization, there are 18 cities with fairness laws providing non-discrimination protections for housing and employment, with Fairmont being the most recent city to adopt an ordinance at the end of 2022.

“We’ve heard proponents of this bill say it’s not about discrimination. … This would say the bill does protect religious freedom,” Pushkin said. “(The amendment) would clearly state that it could not provide a legal cover for those who would seek to use this law to discriminate against other citizens.”

House Judiciary Committee Vice Chairman Tom Fast, R-Fayette, spoke against Pushkin’s attempts to amend the bill.

Fast said HB 3042 would provide a guide to the judicial system for handling challenges to non-discrimination laws if the challenges are filed, but HB 3042 wouldn’t necessarily mean those laws would be overturned.

“This bill provides a judicial test just for these non-discrimination laws,” Fast said. “When one begins a claim under one of those laws, this bill guides the courts through the process for that very claim.”

The bill was opposed by other members of the Democratic House caucus Monday, citing their concerns that the bill could be used by religious majorities to force government to elevate one religion over another.

“I’ve heard from a number of different people that this bill really doesn’t do anything to those ordinances; that’s not who it is aimed at,” said Del. Joey Garcia, D-Marion. “That (amendment) would not have hurt the bill if that was really true.”

“I worry that the crack in the door is going to cause a lawsuit over this and declaration that my religion says ‘I don’t have to do this,’” said Del. Ric Griffith, D-Wayne. “I ask that you consider that this might have an adverse effect that would cause to put children at risk.”

The House Judiciary Committee recommended HB 3042 for passage last week and held a public hearing Friday on the bill, which included several speakers for and against RFRA.

Jack Jarvis, communications director for Fairness West Virginia, said the bill could have negative repercussions for the state’s economy. He pointed to the example of Indiana, which passed a similar law in 2015. Jarvis said the city of Indianapolis lost out on $60 million in tourism dollars after major organizations pulled their conventions from the city.

“I’ve been confused to hear people say this won’t affect our economy. We know this is a bill — though it’s called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act — that’s nothing more than a license to discriminate, and that’s an expensive license,” Jarvis said. “Our state is not in a place where we can turn businesses, corporations and major events away, and this will do that.”

Rev. Cindy Briggs-Biondi, a pastor at St. Marks United Methodist Church in Charleston, believes the bill could be used by people and business owners to deny services to others based on their religious beliefs.

“Religious freedom is enshrined in our Constitution, and I am very thankful for that.,” Briggs-Biondi said. “This bill would allow, I think, for coerced impulses of our faith to have a platform. When I look at the history of the church, I look at times where Christians have used their faith in order to justify all kinds of terrible practices…I’m concerned that this bill would give platform to our worst impulses.”

But proponents of the bill argued that RFRA would simply protect people from having governments violate their religious rights and beliefs and give them a legal remedy to challenge government ordinances and laws.

“We as West Virginians do not take our rights of religious liberty for granted or lightly,” said Dan Stephens, pastor of Bible Baptist Church in Parkersburg. “HB 3042 reinforces the rights guaranteed in…our state Constitution ensuring that we, as citizens, may teach, practice, and follow a lifestyle in accordance with the moral dictates of our conscience without fear of government intrusion or judicial overreach.”

“I would argue this bill is a shield and not a sword,” said Bo Burgess, a pastor representing West Virginia Baptists for Biblical Values “It simply provides a shield for anyone who has a deeply held religious belief from government intrusion. That is the point. This protects us from the government intruding on our deeply held religious beliefs.”

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, there are 20 states that have enacted RFRA laws since 1993 and another 16 states this year that have introduced similar bills or amendments to existing laws.