Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/rfra1.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 13:29:40+00:00

Document:
Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRA).
During the 1960's and 1970's, a series of decisions by the US Supreme Court supported individuals' religious freedom by limiting the authority of governments to pass restrictive legislation. Two important examples were Sherbert v. Verner in 1963 and Wisconsin v. Yoder in 1972.
During the late 1980's, the US Supreme Court's philosophy shifted in the direction of allowing governments to restrict religious freedom, as long as the limitations applied equally to all faiths. The US Supreme Court decision of Employment Division v. Smith in 1990 was a key decision in this area. The court ruled that native religious use of peyote (a hallucinogenic drug) is not a constitutionally protected religious right. Some native religious traditions had been using peyote in their religious rituals for millennia.
Over 60 religious organizations and civil liberties groups combined to form the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion to fight this trend. They represented both religious liberals and conservatives, and included Native American spiritual groups and Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Scientology and Sikh religious organizations and a secular Humanist group. The coalition brought together longtime enemies, like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Concerned Women for America; the Americans United for Separation of Church & State and the Traditional Values Coalition. The group expanded to include 72 very different organizations who often had opposite views on almost every other topic.
If they need to restrict religious freedom, then to select the least intrusive method to achieve their goal.
American Atheists were one of the few groups which opposed RFRA. They complained that it gave "special rights" to churches, mosques, synagogues, temples and other sectarian organizations.
In a rare move, the House of Representatives, unanimously approved a RFRA bill on 1993-OCT-27. The Senate passed the bill to 97 to 3 with no abstentions on 1993-NOV-3. President Clinton signed it into law on 1993-NOV-16. RFRA became immediately effective .
Dozens of cases subsequently made effective use of this law. But in other lawsuits, low level courts found that applying the act was unconstitutional in some applications. One case reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Antonio wanted to demolish part of a Catholic church in Boerne, TX. The town refused, because the local historic ordinances required that the building be maintained. The church sued under RFRA, in Boerne v. Flores, and lost. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1997-JUN that RFRA was unconstitutional because it exceeded the authority of Congress. The high court ruled that RFRA cannot apply to states. Congress responded to this decision by amending RFRA so that it only applies to federal law. This restored RFRA's constitutionality.
The Supreme Court ruling and the RFRA amendment motivated many state governments to pass RFRA-like laws.
Short Title: This Act may be cited as the 'Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993'.
in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 US 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.
to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.
(a) In General: Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
Judicial Relief: A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.
the term 'exercise of religion' means the exercise of religion under the First Amendment to the Constitution.
(a) In General. This Act applies to all Federal and State law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after the enactment of this Act.
(b) Rule of Construction. Federal statutory law adopted after the date of the enactment of this Act is subject to this Act unless such law explicitly excludes such application by reference to this Act.
(c) Religious Belief Unaffected. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize any government to burden any religious belief.
A lawsuit (Boerne v. Flores) involved the Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Antonio, TX. The city of Boerne TX refused to issue a construction permit to allow the church to expand into a historical district. The church sued, and the federal judge determined that the RFRA act was unconstitutional. The city argued that the act violates the 10th Amendment rights of states and local governments. That ruling was reviewed by several appeal courts which found the act constitutional.
In addition, many unrelated cases had been initiated under the RFRA by prison inmates who charged that prison regulation of clothing, diet, etc. are violations of their religious beliefs. Many of these are nuisance suits. The states of Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and Vermont filed "amicus curia" (friend of the court) briefs supporting the city of Boerne. They complained that the RFRA act disrupted prison life by allowing "gangs and like-minded groups to shroud illicit activity under the cover of 'religious' belief."
"RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress' ... enforcement power because it contradicts vital principles necessary to maintain separation of powers and the federal state balance...RFRA's legislative record lacks examples of any instances of generally applicable laws passed because of religious bigotry in the past 40 years. Rather, the emphasis of the RFRA hearings was on laws like the one at issue that place incidental burdens on religion. It is difficult to maintain that such laws are based on animus or hostility to the burdened religious practices or that they indicate some widespread pattern of religious discrimination in this country.
RFRA's most serious shortcoming, however, lies in the fact that it is so out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventive object that it cannot be understood as responsive to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behavior. It appears, instead, to attempt a substantive change in constitutional protections, proscribing state conduct that the Fourteenth Amendment itself does not prohibit. Its sweeping coverage ensures its intrusion at every level of government, displacing laws and prohibiting official actions of almost every description and regardless of subject matter. Its restrictions apply to every government agency and official...and to all statutory or other law, whether adopted before or after its enactment...It has no termination date or termination mechanism. Any law is subject to challenge at any time by any individual who claims a substantial burden on his or her free exercise of religion. Such a claim will often be difficult to contest. Requiring a State to demonstrate a compelling interest and show that it has adopted the least restrictive means of achieving that interest is the most demanding test known to constitutional law..."
"All told, RFRA is a considerable congressional intrusion into the States' traditional prerogatives and general authority to regulate for the health and welfare of their citizens, and is not designed to identify and counteract state laws likely to be unconstitutional because of their treatment of religion."
"The 'least dangerous branch' of government has turned out to be the most dangerous branch for those who value religious freedom."
A California state regulation requiring an employment loyalty oath was successfully challenged by a group of Jehovah's Witnesses.
In Wisconsin, an Amish group challenged a state regulation which required them to mount bright orange safety triangles on their buggies. The Amish avoid "worldly" displays.
In Rhode Island, Hmong families were unable to prevent autopsies being performed on their of dead relatives; they sincerely believe that the procedure eliminates future life after death.
In Maryland, a number of Roman Catholic teaching hospitals had their accreditation canceled because they refused to perform abortions.
As a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Boerne v. Flores, -- which decided that RFRA only applies to federal laws, RFRA law was amended in 1997 so that it has no authority over state matters. As of 2018-NOV, RFRA is remains an active federal law, in place for twenty-five years.
Public school children could be forced to either recite a prayer or ask to be excused. The latter might leave them open to harassment and attacks by a majority of students.
The government of Utah could declare itself a Mormon state.
The amendment failed to win a 2/3 majority in the House on 1998-JUN-4. Similar amendments have been introduced since, without success.
A federal bill to replace RFRA, the Religious Liberty Protection Act, passed the House but died in the Senate.
Another bill, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), was passed by Congress and signed into law on 2000-SEP-22. It restricts governments from interfering with the religious use of land. It also guaranteed religious freedom to inmates of institutions.
During 2003-NOV, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the RLUIPA law had "the primary effect of advancing religion." They thus found that it violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which draws a wall between church and state.
In most recent religious freedom disputes, it has been the owner(s) of a Public Accommodation -- an organization that offers goods and services to the general public -- who wants the religious freedom to discriminate against their own customers. Examples are bakeries, florists, professional photographers, etc. In most cases, they wish to exercise their relgioius freedom to discriminate against the LGBT community, in violation of the Golden Rule.
Transitioning from: "religious freedom of belief" to "religious freedom to control, discriminate against, denigrate, and/or oppress others"
The text of the 1997-JUN decision of the Supreme Court can be read in HTML or WordPerfect formats at: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-2074.cpanel.html Included are the 28 page decision (Kennedy), two Concurrences (Stevens, Scalia), and three dissents (O'Connor, Souter and Breyer).
http://www.religious-freedom.org/rfratop.html contains detailed information, including the full text of the law and a list of court cases that have cited the RFRA.
"Circuit Court strikes down religious 'special rights' statute," AANews, 2003-DEC-20.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.