Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs) and Their Impact on Anti-Discrimination Laws

How RFRAs shift the legal balance between religious liberty and civil rights protections, and why courts keep disagreeing on where the line should be.

By Garret Merkley · Explainer · Jul 29, 2026

Branched from State Laws Protecting LGBTQ+ Customers Against Refusal of Service on Religious Grounds

Quick take

RFRAs make it harder for the government to enforce laws that burden religious practice, even if those laws apply to everyone equally.
When RFRAs collide with anti-discrimination laws, courts must weigh religious conscience against someone's right to equal access to goods and services.
The outcome depends heavily on which RFRA applies (federal or state), how the court interprets it, and whether the government can show a 'compelling interest' strong enough to override religious objection.

A Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is a federal or state law that raises the bar for when government can enforce a rule that burdens someone's religious practice. Normally, a law applies equally to everyone—no special treatment. But RFRAs say: if a law substantially interferes with your sincere religious belief, the government must show it has a really important reason (a 'compelling interest') and no other way to achieve that goal. Without an RFRA, courts give much less protection to religious objections. With one, religious claims get a second look.

How RFRAs Work: The Legal Test

Before RFRAs, courts used 'rational basis' review—they asked only whether a law was rational, not whether it was the least restrictive way to achieve a goal. RFRAs flipped that. Now, if a law substantially burdens religious exercise, the government must pass 'strict scrutiny': it must prove the law serves a compelling governmental interest AND is the least restrictive means of achieving it. That's a high bar. It means the government can't just say 'everyone has to follow this rule.' It has to explain why your religious objection can't be accommodated without sacrificing something truly vital.

The federal RFRA, passed in 1993, applies to federal laws and actions. Many states have their own RFRAs with similar or sometimes stronger language. Some state RFRAs explicitly cover private conduct (like a business refusing service), while the federal RFRA was initially read to apply mainly to government action. This difference matters enormously when a religious objection collides with a private civil-rights lawsuit.

The Collision with Anti-Discrimination Laws

Anti-discrimination laws—whether federal, state, or local—prohibit refusing service based on protected characteristics like race, sex, sexual orientation, or religion. They're meant to ensure equal access. When a business owner or service provider claims a religious objection to serving a particular customer (for example, refusing to create a wedding cake or floral arrangement for a same-sex couple), an RFRA can become a shield. The business argues: 'This anti-discrimination law substantially burdens my religious belief, so the government must meet strict scrutiny.' The civil-rights advocate counters: 'Preventing discrimination is a compelling interest, and there's no way around it.'

Courts have split on how to resolve this tension. In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the baker but on narrow grounds—it found the state civil-rights commission had shown hostility to religion, not that the anti-discrimination law itself was unconstitutional. The Court didn't say RFRAs always trump anti-discrimination laws, but it made clear that religious objections deserve serious consideration. Meanwhile, other courts have upheld anti-discrimination laws against RFRA challenges, finding that equal access to public accommodations is indeed a compelling interest that justifies the burden on religious exercise.

State Variations and Scope

Not all RFRAs are identical. Some state RFRAs are broader than the federal version—they explicitly protect religious exercise against private conduct, not just government action. A few states have RFRAs that apply to disputes between private parties (like a customer suing a business). Others are narrower or have been interpreted by courts to apply mainly to government enforcement. This patchwork means the same refusal-of-service scenario might have different legal outcomes depending on which state's RFRA applies and how that state's courts read it.

Why This Matters and When It Applies

RFRAs exist because many people believe religious conscience deserves protection from laws that weren't designed to target religion but happen to burden it. The original federal RFRA had broad bipartisan support; it was meant to restore protections that courts had stripped away. But as RFRAs have been applied to anti-discrimination disputes, they've become lightning rods. For religious believers, an RFRA is a crucial safeguard against being forced to act against deeply held convictions. For civil-rights advocates, a broad RFRA can undermine hard-won protections against discrimination. The stakes are real: a customer denied service, a business owner facing legal liability, and a fundamental question about whose rights prevail when they genuinely conflict.

This matters most in cases involving refusal of service—wedding vendors, healthcare providers, adoption agencies, and others in positions to deny or grant access based on religious objection. It also affects workplace accommodations, housing, education, and government benefits. The outcome hinges on how courts interpret the RFRA, what the business actually does, whether the law was aimed at religion or just happens to affect it, and whether the government can show the compelling interest and narrow tailoring required by strict scrutiny.

Key Flashpoints in RFRA vs. Anti-Discrimination Disputes

Wedding services (cakes, flowers, photography, venue) for same-sex couples
Healthcare providers' refusal to perform procedures (abortion, gender-affirming care, contraception)
Adoption and foster-care agencies denying LGBTQ+ applicants
Employers seeking religious exemptions from equal-pay or non-discrimination rules
Landlords refusing housing to unmarried couples or LGBTQ+ tenants

Does an RFRA automatically let someone refuse service on religious grounds?

No. An RFRA shifts the legal burden—it requires the government to justify the law under strict scrutiny—but it doesn't guarantee the religious objector wins. Courts still have to decide if the government's interest (like preventing discrimination) is compelling and if the law is narrowly tailored. Some RFRAs have been applied to block anti-discrimination enforcement; others have not.

What's the difference between the federal RFRA and state RFRAs?

The federal RFRA applies to federal law and action. State RFRAs apply to state and local law. Some state RFRAs are broader and explicitly cover disputes between private parties; others are narrower. A few states have no RFRA at all. This means the same scenario can have different outcomes in different states.

Can an anti-discrimination law ever be a 'compelling interest' strong enough to override a religious objection?

Yes, courts have found that preventing discrimination in public accommodations can be a compelling interest. But the government still has to show there's no less restrictive way to achieve it. If a business offers a service to the public, courts are more likely to uphold anti-discrimination rules against RFRA challenges than if the business is small, expressive, or highly personal.

Does an RFRA protect someone who discriminates based on race or other historically protected categories?

In theory, an RFRA protects any sincere religious belief, including ones based on race. In practice, courts have been very reluctant to accept race-based religious objections, viewing them as pretexts for illegal discrimination. Sexual orientation and gender identity claims have gotten more traction, though courts remain divided on how much weight to give them against anti-discrimination laws.

Can a business claim an RFRA defense in a discrimination lawsuit brought by a customer?

It depends on the RFRA. Some state RFRAs explicitly allow private parties to raise the defense; others don't. The federal RFRA was originally read to apply only to government action, but courts have interpreted it in various ways. This is one of the biggest points of disagreement among courts and is still evolving.

Sources

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018)
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) — landmark case on RFRA and private conduct