Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear signed House Bill 43 into law on Tuesday, which exempts houses of worship from distinct emergency measures unless “such houses have become unsafe to a degree that would justify condemnation in the absence of a state of emergency.”
“A governmental entity shall not prohibit or restrict a religious organization from operating or engaging in religious services during a declared emergency to the same or any greater extent than other organizations or businesses that provide essential services necessary and vital to the health and welfare of the public are prohibited or restricted,” the new law stated. “[N]o health, safety, or occupancy requirement may impose a substantial burden on a religious organization or its services unless applying the burden to the religion or religious service in the particular instance is essential to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
FROM CONTROVERSY TO COMPASSION: DANIEL SNYDER'S JAW-DROPPING GIFT LEAVES NATION IN AWE
The new law won’t prohibit the state from demanding religious organizations to “comply with neutral health, safety, or occupancy requirements that apply to all organizations and businesses that provide essential services.” Introduced in January and chiefly supported by Republican Rep. Shane Baker, HB 43 was legislated by the House on March 1 in a vote of 83-12, then the Senate on March 23 in a vote of 30-7.
WATCH: RFK JR. WILL REVERSE 80 YEARS OF FARM POLICY
The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal nonprofit that has claimed religious liberty cases at the U.S. Supreme Court level, celebrated the bill's passing. ADF legal counsel Greg Chafuen declared in a statement that houses of worship “provide soul-sustaining operations that are essential to our society and protected by the First Amendment.”
JAMES CARVILLE'S CONTROVERSIAL CRITIQUE: IS WOKE CULTURE KILLING DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT?
“While public officials have the authority and responsibility to protect public health and safety, the First Amendment prohibits the government from treating houses of worship and religious organizations worse than shopping centers, restaurants, or gyms,” Chafuen said. “HB 43 makes it clear that officials cannot discriminate against religious operations, including during a public crisis. We commend Gov. Beshear and the Kentucky Legislature for taking this significant step to defend religious liberty for all Kentuckians.”
INTRUDER SLIPS PAST TSA, BOARDS DELTA PLANE, IN EPIC SECURITY FAILURE
During the COVID-19 pandemic, many local state governments were blamed for treating churches worse than equivalent secular entities in their various lockdown policies aimed at mitigating the spread of the coronavirus. In November 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court governed 5-4 in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo that distinctive New York restrictions had unfairly singled out religious groups.
FROM CONTROVERSY TO COMPASSION: DANIEL SNYDER'S JAW-DROPPING GIFT LEAVES NATION IN AWE
“Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area. But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten,” the majority stated.
WATCH: ATF IS SET TO CRIMINALIZE 10 MILLION AMERICANS
“The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty.” In other states, governments have had to pay out settlements in reaction to lawsuits filed on behalf of churches and other religious organizations who felt their First Amendment rights were infringed because their congregations couldn’t gather due to restrictions against large gatherings.
Last May, California paid $1.35 million to resolve a lawsuit filed by Harvest Rock Church against COVID-19 policies. Kentucky is not the first state to pass a law targeting limiting the ability of state agencies to enact emergency orders that place stricter restrictions on religious bodies than similar secular entities.
OHIO MAN SENTENCED TO PRISON FOR THREATENING ARIZONA GOVERNOR KATIE HOBBS, DETAILS RELEASED
In March 2021, North Dakota passed a law stating state officials can’t minister “religious conduct more restrictively than any secular conduct of reasonably comparable risk unless the government demonstrates through clear and convincing scientific evidence that a particular religious activity poses an extraordinary health risk.” Similar laws were passed in states like New Hampshire and Indiana.