Arizona may become the first state in the nation to explicitly protect professionals from having their license or certification revoked because of their religious practices.

The Legislature passed Senate Bill 1288, and Gov. Jan Brewer has until Saturday to sign it, veto it or do nothing and allow it to become law. The measure forbids any government entity from denying, suspending or revoking a professional or occupational license, certificate or registration based on a person's exercise of religion. It also forbids a government from denying someone a position on a board, commission, committee or public body based on that person's religion.

Supporters say it would further assure constitutional religious-freedom protections.

Opponents say there has never been a case in Arizona where an individual's license was revoked because of his or her religious practices, and they warned the bill would protect people who use "religious practice" as a defense for questionable behavior.

It also may protect people who violate the constitutional rights of others, opening the state up to more lawsuits, they say.

SB 1288 would apply to state and local governments, schools and the state Bar Association, among others. Protected religious beliefs include those that are part of a recognized religion as well as those that are not, such as personal religious beliefs. The bill excludes protection for any criminal behavior or sexual misconduct. It also would not limit an employer's ability to hire or fire someone for their actions.

The bill was written by the conservative Phoenix-based nonprofit Center for Arizona Policy and reflects its effort to extend religious protections in the state.

While both Democrats and Republicans said they support protecting religious speech, they disagree about whether SB 1288 is the way to go about it.

Possible implications

House Minority Leader Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, called the bill "very, very dangerous" because its broad interpretation of a religious belief could lead to abuse. He said, for example, a doctor could treat cancer patients with leeches and keep his license by claiming the leeches are part of his personal religion.

"We all want to protect freedom of religion, but I am very concerned we are opening up a door here we will not be able to close," Campbell said. "This bill allows professionals to practice whatever they believe on other people and not suffer any consequences in their professional field."

Rep. Heather Carter, R-Cave Creek, an Arizona State University professor, said she's worried about what the bill will mean for students.

"This bill may allow a teacher to recruit students for a particular religion in a public school classroom," she said.

Current state statute says a teacher who teaches religious doctrine or conducts religious practices in school is guilty of unprofessional conduct and his or her certificate must be revoked. SB 1288 would change that, saying "a person's exercise of religion is not unprofessional conduct."

Campbell said the law also would protect other kinds of professionals. For example, he said, individuals involved in the death of people at a sweat lodge could use the measure to keep their state licenses, as could a home child-care provider who exposes children to a religious practice parents find unacceptable.

Measure intent

Bill supporters called opponents' scenarios inapplicable and "bizarre."

"The conversation has been about conduct and employment and a lot of things that really don't have anything to do with licensing," said Sen. Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler, the bill's primary sponsor. "This bill exclusively deals with licensing."

He said the goal is to assure that existing First Amendment protections apply to licensing.

In the case of the doctor using leeches, bill supporters said the doctor could still face criminal or malpractice consequences, and consumers could decide whether to go to the doctor.

Deborah Sheasby, an attorney for the Center for Arizona Policy, said the bill strikes a "delicate balance."

"We don't want a government to define what we think are acceptable religious views," she said. "But we certainly don't want people saying their religious beliefs are an excuse for criminal conduct or sexual misconduct."

She said the bill is needed because there have been cases in Arizona and across the U.S. that it could have prevented, including the Arizona Commission on Judicial Court Appointments' decision not to make Tucson resident Christopher Gleason a finalist for the Independent Redistricting Commission. Gleason said he didn't make the list because of doubts about his ability to separate his religious beliefs from his political beliefs. The screening panel said that wasn't the case.

Sheasby said the example of the teacher being protected for recruiting students to a particular religion is not relevant because many other state and federal religion protections already do - and will continue to - protect from that sort of situation. She said the sweat lodge example is especially inappropriate.

"It's unfortunate that they are exploiting that tragedy in this way," she said. "Clearly that would be covered by the criminal conduct exception."

Several lawmakers, both supporters and opponents, seemed unsure during the votes about what the bill would really do or why it was needed.

"I'm always more comfortable when we move bills through this process that we can explain and define," said Rep. Debbie McCune Davis, D-Phoenix, who voted against the measure. "This bill doesn't meet either of those tests."

Constitutional concerns

The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona took a neutral stance on SB 1288, but public policy director Anjali Abraham said it has concerns about the bill's potential to infringe upon the First Amendment rights of others.

Because the protected beliefs don't have to be part of a recognized church, Abraham said, the measure could shield someone who says it is his or her personal religious belief to discriminate against people of another religious affiliation.

"Since we don't define what religion is in this country, which is a good thing, it is possible we will end up protecting people who are discriminating against somebody based on the basis of religion," she said.

Abraham said the ACLU is unsure whether it will file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the bill if it becomes in law.

But a Chandler attorney and national leader in the Freedom From Religion Foundation doesn't see a problem. Marc Victor and his group are suing Brewer for declaring a state day of prayer, saying it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from establishing a state religion. Victor said the First Amendment isn't a one-way street intended to just keep religion out of state matters but more of a wall of separation preventing religion and the state from interfering with each other.

"I like the fact that with this bill, the government is not interfering with someone's free exercise of religion," he said. "Government shouldn't prevent people from anything because of their religious beliefs. But it would be more American to put in there as well that nobody should be denied a license because of their lack of religious beliefs."

Yarbrough said if the measure causes unanticipated constitutional issues, he will consider amending it next year.

"But I think it may be a proverbial tempest in a teapot," he said.