How Utah Has Turned Religious Freedom from a Controversy to a Consensus

G eorgia and Iowa are considering legislation to protect religious practice of state residents from burdens imposed by state and local government. Sounds innocuous enough, but not to some. The headline of a local news report on Iowa’s bill insinuates that the proposal is partisan and cynical (note the scare quotes): “Iowa Senate Republicans pass ‘religious freedom’ bill.” An Associated Press story on Georgia’s bill is more measured but still accusatory: “Georgia bill aims to protect religious liberty. Opponents say it’s a license to discriminate.”

These are examples of how, increasingly in recent years, the media narrative has framed religious freedom as a controversial “culture war” issue. The growing number of religious-freedom rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court are depicted as pitting religious freedom against other rights. State challenges involving religious freedom arise in education, health care, and even cake decorating. State efforts draw boycotts for adopting laws patterned after federal religious-freedom protections.

Utah, by contrast, has not seen many political conflicts with religious freedom in recent years. In fact, since 2021, Utah lawmakers have enacted eight new religious-freedom laws with bipartisan (even some unanimous) majorities, including three during our just-concluded legislative session. Federal and other state lawmakers have a lot to learn from Utah when it comes to advancing religious freedom.

This session, Utah unanimously enacted a law similar to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) — the same type of effort that sparked a boycott in Indiana not many years ago. In stark contrast, this bill was approved with the support of social groups that had called for the boycott of Indiana. The consensus around advancing religious freedom was gained by including prefatory language (rare in Utah legislation) meant to allay concerns that the law would disrupt discrimination protections.

Another new law directs employers to accommodate the religious exercise of employees unless doing so would substantially interfere with their business. The third creates a similar rule for public employers, arising from situations in which public employees were asked to take on tasks at odds with their conscience (including religious beliefs), despite the feasibility of an accommodation that requires minimal effort from the employer.

These bills continue a track record of bipartisan support for religious freedom going back to 2021, when the Utah legislature required reasonable accommodations for religious worship and rites in the event of a public-health emergency (like the pandemic that was occurring). It also required colleges and universities to let students participate in religious observances during test days and at other times without docking their grades. In 2023, the state legislature unanimously approved a bill allowing students to wear religious or culturally significant attire during high-school graduations. They also enacted laws to ensure that religious child-welfare agencies can operate consistent with their religious missions, and further required youth-sports organizations to accommodate clothing worn by athletes for religious or moral reasons.

To date, none of these state laws have drawn a lawsuit to block their implementation.

The foundation for Utah’s success in advancing religious freedom has been built by following the intent and design of the U.S. Constitution: Policy consensus achieved through reasonable and candid legislative discussion and negotiation. Instead of asking judges to make all our religious-freedom policies, we talk candidly and listen sincerely to each other — in both agreement and disagreement — and often find areas of policy consensus.

Utah’s experience has some important lessons for other states. First, the ideal approach to securing religious-freedom protections is to proactively identify specific potential conflicts and resolve them, rather than waiting for litigation. This does not mean the state won’t need blanket protections for potential conflicts that are unforeseen, since Utah, too, enacted a RFRA for just this scenario. Second, efforts to resolve concerns of groups that may feel threatened by religious protections during the drafting can alleviate conflicts that would be heightened by a more confrontational approach in court.

Each state will be different, as it should be in our federal system. But one benefit of federalism is the opportunity to learn from the successful approaches of other states. Utah could be a helpful example on this critical issue to anyone interested in advancing and protecting religious freedom.