Georgia Senate passes state Religious Freedom Restoration Act after hours of debate

The Georgia Senate passed Senate Bill 36, the state Religious Freedom Restoration Act, on March 5 after several hours of debate and a 32-23 vote. The bill mirrors the federal RFRA and would require courts to apply a ‘‘compelling government interest’’ and ‘‘least restrictive means’’ test before the state or local governments may substantially burden a person’s religious exercise.

Supporters said the bill fills a legal gap that the U.S. Supreme Court left after City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) and that 39 other states have enacted comparable protections. Senator Sutzler (sponsor, 30th/7th) framed the measure as a neutral, case-by-case balancing test that would protect citizens’ ability to practice their faith while allowing government safety rules to remain in force.

Opponents warned the statute could be used to justify unequal treatment of LGBTQ people and other protected groups where Georgia lacks a statewide civil-rights law. The senator identified in the transcript as ‘‘Senator from the 40 fourth’’ argued the bill would grant a license to discriminate and pointed to economic and reputational consequences experienced in other states after similar bills. Several speakers urged pairing any RFRA change with a comprehensive anti-discrimination statute; sponsors replied that the bill was intentionally modeled on the federal statute and includes language, suggested by outside civil liberties groups, intended to limit unintended consequences.

Debate highlighted illustrative court cases used by supporters: a Texas case allowing a Native American child to keep traditional long hair, and a Florida case where accommodation (a female photographer in private for a driver ID photo) was ordered under a RFRA-style balancing test. Opponents repeatedly cited past episodes in other states where business and civil-rights fallout followed broad RFRA-style laws.

Senate Bill 36 explicitly preserves local civil-rights ordinances and directs courts to weigh local protections when they exist, supporters said. The sponsor emphasized the bill does not guarantee any outcome; rather it sets the legal standard courts must apply when religious exercise and public interests conflict.

The bill passed the Senate 32-23 and will move to the House for consideration.

Meeting observers and several senators urged lawmakers to consider companion civil-rights protections to address opponents’ concerns; sponsors said the Legislature could consider those measures separately.