Judiciary committee advances bill to broaden religious-liberty protections

The Judiciary committee reported Senate Bill 60 favorably with the expression of opinion that the same should pass. The bill, presented by Senator Steve Rawlings, would amend KRS 446.35 to require government actions that burden religious exercise to be justified by clear and convincing evidence of a compelling interest, expand available remedies (including costs and attorney’s fees), and waive sovereign immunity so individuals may sue government actors for alleged violations.

Senator Steve Rawlings, sponsor of the bill, said the legislation would “fortify religious liberty across the Commonwealth” by ensuring government actions “do not place undue burdens on individuals’ rights and religious practices.” He told the committee that SB 60 would raise the evidentiary standard and “provide a clear and stronger legal framework to protect religious freedoms from infringement from government actions.”

The measure drew several opponents during the public‑comment portion. Chris Hartman, executive director of the Fairness Campaign, said SB 60 “opens the door to jackpot justice for national interest groups like Alliance Defending Freedom” and warned it could expose local governments with anti‑discrimination ordinances to large damage awards. Hartman said 24 Kentucky communities have local fairness ordinances and contended the bill’s sweep could allow challenges to a wide range of state and local laws, including civil‑rights and domestic‑violence statutes.

Sam Markison, a member of the Brandeis School of Law faculty at the University of Louisville and a former Equal Employment Opportunity Commission attorney, said Kentucky already has a Religious Freedom Restoration Act and warned SB 60 “goes an unfortunate step further” by weakening local governments’ ability to enforce anti‑discrimination laws. Markison said some recent lawsuits nationwide were filed by individuals who had not yet been the subject of enforcement actions but sought injunctive relief based on anticipated enforcement.

Rabbi Ben Fried of Knesset Israel Synagogue in Louisville said he supports religious freedom generally but urged committee members to add language ensuring religious exemptions do not “harm others,” noting that absolutist readings of religious liberty can be used to justify discrimination. “If a Christian landlord decided they did not want Jewish or Muslim tenants because our beliefs were abhorrent to them, would that be permissible under this bill?” Fried asked the committee.

Committee members asked how the bill would interact with public‑health requirements and existing legal standards. Attorney Greg Baylor, appearing at the table for Alliance Defending Freedom, said the statute would give claimants an opportunity to present religious‑liberty claims and that courts could still conclude public health or other compelling interests justify government measures. Baylor invoked precedent and a long history of RFRA‑style laws in other jurisdictions to argue the bill’s outcomes would depend on judicial balancing.

Senators expressed differing views before the roll call. Senators Carroll, Deneen, Niemas, Reid, Stivers, Wheeler and Chair Storm were recorded voting aye; Senators Neal and Thomas recorded no. The committee adopted a committee substitute earlier in the hearing by voice vote and later moved the bill to favorably report with the expression of opinion that it should pass.

SB 60 cites and would amend KRS 446.35. Proponents described the change as raising the burden of proof to “clear and convincing evidence of a compelling interest” and adding remedies and a sovereign‑immunity waiver; opponents asked the committee to consider amendments that would carve out anti‑discrimination laws from the statute’s reach.

The committee took testimony and voted to report the bill favorably; the measure will proceed to the next steps in the legislative process.