The importance of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as a crucial protector of the free exercise of religion continues to manifest. Most recently, a federal judge ruled that members of the Christian Employers Association do not have to obey government regulations that require that employees be covered by health insurance that pays for gender-transition procedures if doing so would “violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.” From the ruling (citations omitted):

To state a claim under RFRA, a religious objector must show that the government substantially burdens a sincere religious exercise or belief. The burden then shifts to the government to show that it has a “compelling interest” in applying “the challenged law ‘to the person’—the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religion is being substantially burdened.”

To satisfy the compelling-interest requirement, the government must do more than identify “broadly formulated interests justifying the general applicability of government mandates.” The government also bears the burden of showing that “application of the burden to the person … is the least restrictive means of furthering” its compelling interest.

How are the dissenting employers burdened?

When the government ‘conditions receipt of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith or denies such a benefit because of conduct mandated by religious belief…thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs. In other words, governmental action substantially burdens the exercise of religion when it coerces private individuals into violating their religious beliefs or penalizes them for those beliefs by denying them the “rights, benefits, and privileges enjoyed by other citizens.”

When the government imposes a direct monetary penalty to coerce conduct that violates religious belief, there has never been a question that the government imposes a substantial burden on the exercise of religion.

What were the beliefs so burdened?

Here, CEA’s sincerely held religious belief is that male and female are immutable realities defined by biological sex and that gender reassignment is contrary to Christian Values. As a result, performing or providing health care coverage for gender transition services under the EEOC and HHS coverage mandates impinges upon CEA’s beliefs. CEA must either comply with the EEOC and HHS mandates by violating their sincerely held religious beliefs or else face harsh consequences like paying fines and facing civil liability.

Having proved the coercion to violate religious beliefs, the government failed to show that doing so serves a “compelling government interest” — and, if so, that the remedy was the least restrictive practicable. Thus:

Accordingly, the Court PERMANENTLY ENJOINS AND RESTRAINS HHS, Secretary Becerra, their divisions, bureaus, agents, officers, commissioners, employees, and anyone acting in concert or participation with them…from interpreting or enforcing Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. § 18116(a), or any implementing regulations thereto against CEA or its present or future members, or anyone acting in concert or participation with them, and their respective health plans and any insurers or TPAs in connection with such health plans, in a manner that would require them to perform or provide insurance coverage for gender-transition procedures, including by denying federal financial assistance because of their failure to perform or provide insurance coverage for such procedures or by otherwise pursuing, charging, or assessing any penalties, fines, assessments, investigations, or other enforcement actions.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was similarly enjoined. Good.

Three comments:

First, the RFRA is one of the few safeguards of comity in a society as culturally riven as ours. The law promotes pluralism and prevents the national government from infringing on the free exercise of religion — which should be better protected by the First Amendment than it currently is. This case is an example of how that process operates.

Second, because the RFRA protects religious belief — which progressives denigrate as the protection of invidious discrimination — the Democratic Party will geld or kill the law outright as soon as it gains control of all branches of the federal government. Indeed, bills such as the so-called Do No Harm Act would have done just that.

Finally, the government’s attempt to force religious employers to violate their faith or be punished illustrates the consequences of nationalizing heath-care policy. Indeed, a major purpose of the Affordable Care Act was to enable the regulatory process to be deployed as a means of imposing controversial culture change on the entire country under the guise of greater access to health insurance.

So, this is a win for religious freedom, which is good, but such victories should not be taken for granted. If the RFRA is ever killed, religious freedom will fall to reigning progressive cultural agendas. This should be an election issue.