Bill would create religious exemption to state law

CHEYENNE — Wyoming could soon join 28 other states in enacting a state-level Religious Freedom Restoration Act that would protect religious exercise and observance by individuals and corporations from state government interference.

After Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993, a U.S. Supreme Court decision found it violated the Constitution as it extended to the state and local level. In City of Boerne v. Flores, the high court decided Congress could not create a religious exemption that would be generally applicable to state and local laws.

Since this decision, 28 states have passed RFRA laws, plus nine other states have effectively done so through their court systems.

House Bill 207, “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” adopts similar definitions of “burden,” “exercise of religion” and “person” as other state RFRAs, according to Rep. Art Washut, R-Casper, the bill’s sponsor.

HB 207 prevents state action from “burdening” a person’s ability to exercise religion, including state laws with general applicability. An exemption is made for a state law where there is proven “compelling governmental interest” that is pursued in the least restrictive way possible.

A state RFRA has appeared before the Wyoming Legislature several times already.

Nathan Winters, a former state lawmaker, first brought the bill in 2015, where it passed through the House of Representatives but failed in the Senate.

Washut, current chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, sponsored the bill in 2023 and 2024. Washut told House Judiciary Committee members Monday morning this bill was essential to protecting religious freedom practices from the “burden” of government.

Rep. Ken Chestek, D-Laramie, said he was concerned about the bill’s inclusion of corporations in its definition of “person.”

“Can a corporation have religious beliefs? A corporation lives forever; it doesn’t have to worry about the afterlife,” Chestek said. “Can a corporation have religious beliefs that can be protected by law?”

Senior Counsel Greg Chafuen for Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal advocacy group, said this was a question that previously came up before the U.S. Supreme Court. He added that the federal Dictionary Act of 1871 includes corporations under the definition of “person.”

“If you’re a private person in a mom-and-pop shop … you don’t lose your religious freedom rights just because you started a corporation,” Chafuen said.

Chestek pressed further, asking what happens if a same-sex couple applies for a marriage license, but the clerk refuses to do so because it violates their religious beliefs.

“Does this bill protect the clerk from being fired for not doing their job?” Chestek said.

“This doesn’t determine any particular outcome,” Chafuen answered. “At the very least, it’ll at least give that person a fair day in court to make their case as to why they shouldn’t be forced to do something that might violate their conscience.”

In the 28 states that have passed RFRA, it’s rare to see a same-sex couple denied a marriage license under this act, Chafuen said. If a clerk found that the marriage went against their religious beliefs, the same-sex couple would be deferred to another clerk.

Washut added that at least two of the 28 states “have a very active LGBTQ presence.”

During public comment, Wyoming Equality Executive Director Sara Burlingame asked committee members to put in an amendment that would prevent discrimination against LGBTQ individuals.

Washut said Burlingame’s amendment was unnecessary.

“All we’re changing here is the standard by which the judicial branch will evaluate these cases,” Washut said.

The bill passed unamended on a vote of 8-1, with a “no” vote from Chestek. The committee’s sole Democratic lawmaker said he was not voting against freedom of religion, but rather due to his concern that the bill violated the separation of church and state “to some extent.”

“This bill, I believe, does put a thumb on the scale in favor of individuals who would, I think, misuse the Free Exercise Clause and turn it into a sword against other people’s rights,” Chestek said.

HB 207 will now go to the House floor, where House members will further debate and vote on the bill.

This story was published on January 28, 2025.