Meeting Public Comments

Barbara and Jim Dale

SF 436 to allow "religious exemptions" invites abuse by those who wish to discriminate against others for whatever reasons. Most people who know us would describe us as "religious"," but we believe that our convictions must not be used to inflict pain or impediments on others who believe differently. Freedom of religion as stated in our nation's Constitution allows for all belief systems, not one or a few that people in power espouse.Please do not advance this bill.

Heather Stancil

I support this bill in that it further protects the first amendment regarding religion. Government should not be free to impose its secular humanism, any more than any other religion, on anyone who does not agree with that belief system.

Maya Carneiro

SUPPORT SF 436 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This bill restricts government overreach. It protects individuals from statutes and policies that have the potential to conflict with the edicts of our own consciences and God's Word. This is not a bill forcing any mindset of any people group. It is in Constitutional compliance to the 1st amendment of the US Constitution and Art 1 Sec. 3 of the Iowa Constitution. The government cannot cultivate policies that have the direct or symbolic effect of establishing a state or national religion that is mandated.

Nate P

I support this bill.

Katie M

I support this bill.

Teresa Baustian

Please do not advance this destructive bill. Scholars have noted that RFRA laws have moved far from any First Amendmentbased legitimate religious liberty to religiouslymotivated control of others, with its primary target being Title VII and, in Iowa, our Iowa Civil Rights Act. I note that the bill claims that it is to be interpreted consistently with the federal RFRA; consequently, I feel the critiques of that law are applicable here, as well. Its a particularly cruel effort, as well, because the language of the bill does not require consideration of the harm to third parties; its solely concerned with the burden on the believer.Professor Marci Hamilton, Fox Family Pavilion Resident Senior Fellow in the Program for Research on Religion at the University of Pennsylvania cites the example of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, where RFRA gave that forprofit business owner a right to unilaterally exclude contraceptives from female employees benefit packages without consideration or weighing of womens civil rights under Title VII. This is RFRA being used as a weapon for believers to inflict their faith on nonbelievers. The foundation has been laid for forprofit employers to used RFRA to harm LGBTQ, as well. In the Supreme Courts decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, RFRA was explicitly named as a tool to dismantle Title VIIs protections for LGBTQ employees. Further more, Professor Hamilton points out that the First Amendment, as currently interpreted and all by itself, is a potent weapon against discrimination and targeting, as laid out in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. There is no need for RFRA, period. Professor Hamilton does a tremendous amount of work to prevent child abuse, too, and notes that RFRA is a weapon against child welfare because it applies to child labor laws, child sex trafficking laws and child abuse laws.

Amanda D

I support this bill! Freedom of religion needs protected.

Jane Robinette

Please oppose SF 436. This bill would provide a broad exemption to the Iowa Civil Rights Act that would allow a license to discriminate, particularly against the LGBTQ community. Everyone deserves to be treated fairly. Young people know this, and they will not remain in a state where discrimination is allowed. Companies within Iowa and companies looking to move to Iowa also know this, and they will rethink their decisions to remain or relocate here. Sports organizations will pull their tournaments, hurting the progress and investments Iowa has already made to attract them. SF 436 a disaster for equal rights protection, population growth, and economic development. Protect all Iowans' basic civil rights. Vote no on SF 436.

Pam Sparks

Support this bill SF436. Thank you!

Steven Herwig

Using religious freedom as a shield for violating ones civil rights is discriminatory. A religion does not have primacy over another persons civil rights. To allow for religious activity to prevail is establishing a state of preference. We have freedom from religion which is established in civil law.

Jocelyn Krueger

I am a transgender Iowan who recently moved back to the state with my family after spending a decade in Indiana. I lived through RFRA there and I can tell you about my experiences there. The talk around and the existence of RFRA increased the dayto day discrimination I faced. One February my toddler wanted cookies for desert on Valentines Day. I went to our local grocery store where I was carded while using debit card trying to buy Oreos and milk because the clerk thought I didnt look like the name on my card. Let me ask you, how many of you have been carded while buying groceries or clothes or Christmas presents? In Indiana, after RFRA, it happened all the time. After looking at my id, the clerk refused to sell me the milk and cookies. I offered to pay in cash but was still denied service. I was sad and angry and upset and left the store utterly dejected.Around the same time I got my first job that provided health care. I was elated and went to find a primary care provider that took my insurance, someone to help me to manage my high blood pressure and prescribe me antibiotics if I got strep throat. My elation soon soured as I was turned away by 6 providers and told that they do not see transgender patients, that their beliefs precluded them from helping me stay healthy. There were also no longterm care facilities in the area that would let me and my partner stay together or me alone at all because they did not take transgender residents, god forbid we would need such care in the future.This is what RFRAenabled discrimination looks like, and those are just three examples I faced personally. There were many more over the next five years. You may hear that there are protections from this type discrimination already in law, that LGBTQ people can seek justice through litigation under existing laws. In Indiana, under RFRA, I had no recourse. Someone exercising their religion is already protected under the 1st Amendment. As a transgender citizen, I really have no such protection and whether I am protected or not is at the whim of state legislatures, governors, and executive order. This bill would sever me and my family from our community. Look, I wanna be able to buy milk and cookies for my family without fear, to participate and be healthy in our community without fear. And I should say that Iowa has the best milk on Earth and I am genuinely happy to be back in Iowa, but I am worried.Please vote no Senate File 436.