PHOENIX — State lawmakers gave final approval to a religious freedom bill designed to keep the government from shutting down religious services during emergency declarations.
The 35-22 House vote Tuesday came despite concerns it could legalize discrimination and preclude lawsuits against religious hospitals.
House Bill 2507, already approved by the Senate, would declare that religious services are “essential services and deemed necessary and vital to the health and welfare of the public.’’ The bill now goes to Republican Gov. Doug Ducey.
During the pandemic, Ducey exempted religious services from his orders limiting the size of gatherings. But proponents say they need something in statute to protect against future executive orders.Rep. Lupe Diaz, R-Benson, said there is a concern that disparate, and less favorable, treatment might be given to religions during declared emergencies.
“It’s amazing that we could be denied gathering, or possibly denied gathering, at churches and yet have stadiums and malls open, box stores open,’’ said Diaz, who is a pastor at Grace Chapel. “It is an essential service.’’
House Speaker Rusty Bowers, R-Mesa, said such protection from government overreach is necessary. “In times of exigency, people can meet and give each other comfort,’’ he said.
But Rep. Mitzi Epstein, D-Tempe, said the problem is that the bill goes beyond guaranteeing religious services during emergencies. She cited language that also exempts religious institutions — including the schools and corporations they run and any societies, whether or not affiliated with a church — from various state and local laws, rules and regulations.
“For example, a corporation could fire an employee for getting divorced,’’ by claiming religious immunity, she said. “And that’s not really the intention of this bill, I hope.’’ Epstein said it’s not limited to those who work for these religious organizations.
“A patient would lose the right to sue a religious hospital for medical neglect,’’ she said.
Arizonans support their houses of worship, Epstein said. “The spirit of this bill is a lovely idea,’’ she said. “But the words on the page are a horrible idea.’’
Epstein is not the only one raising concerns about the scope of immunity for churches and religious organizations.
“Even if they engage in abuse, fraud, or otherwise violate the law, religious organizations, including hospitals and schools, could not be sued,’’ according to a statement by the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona. “This is unprecedented — and dangerous.’’
Rep. Judy Schweibert, D-Phoenix, said she has heard concerns from religious leaders that the bill could immunize organizations from charges of child abuse.
But that conclusion is less than clear. The legislation says it does not apply to any case “based on criminal conduct’’ or to civil cases brought by victims of that conduct. It specifically spells out that nothing in the bill bars victims of sexual abuse from taking advantage of new laws that give them up to 12 years after reaching age 18 to file suit against their abusers and those who employed them.
The ban against governments closing down or limiting worship services would not be absolute.
The measure still would allow the state to impose “neutral health, safety or occupancy requirements’’ issued by state or local governments as long as they “apply to all organizations and businesses that provide essential services.’’
There is an area where religious services would get greater immunity than other gatherings, however. The language says the state cannot enforce any requirements that impose a “substantial burden’’ on services unless the government can show it is “essential to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.’’
It allows religious organizations to file suit and get not only a court order permitting them to operate but also to receive compensatory damage and reasonable legal fees.
