PHOENIX — State lawmakers gave final approval to a religious freedom bill Tuesday despite concerns it could legalize discrimination and even preclude lawsuits against religious hospitals.
The 35-22 vote came on a measure designed to keep the government from shutting down religious services during emergency declaration. House Bill 2507, which already has been approved by the Senate, would declare religious services are “essential services and deemed necessary and vital to the health and welfare of the public.”
Rep. Lupe Diaz, R-Benson, said there is a concern about providing disparate — and less favorable — treatment to religions.
“It’s amazing that we could be denied gathering, or possibly denied gathering, at churches and yet have stadiums and malls open, box stores open,” said Diaz, who is a pastor at Grace Chapel. “It is an essential service.”
House Speaker Rusty Bowers, R-Mesa, said such protection from government overreach is necessary.
“In times of exigency, people can meet and give each other comfort,” he said.
But Rep. Mitzi Epstein, D-Tempe, said the problem is the bill, which now goes to Gov. Doug Ducey, goes beyond guaranteeing religious services during emergencies. She cited language that exempts religious institutions — including the schools and corporations they run and any societies, whether or not affiliated with a church — from various state and local laws, rules and regulations.
“For example, a corporation could fire an employee for getting divorced,” she said, claiming religious immunity. “And that’s not really the intention of this bill, I hope.”
And Epstein said it’s not limited to those who work for these religious organizations.
“A patient would lose the right to sue a religious hospital for medical neglect,” she said.
Epstein said Arizonans do support their houses of worship.
“The spirit of this bill is a lovely idea,” she said. “But the words on the page are a horrible idea.”
Epstein is not the only one raising concerns about the scope of immunity for churches and religious organizations.
“Even if they engage in abuse, fraud, or otherwise violate the law, religious organizations, including hospitals and schools, could not be sued,” according to a statement by the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona. “This is unprecedented — and dangerous.”
Rep. Judy Schweibert, D-Phoenix, said she has heard concerns from religious leaders that the bill could immunize organizations from charges of child abuse.
But that conclusion is less than clear.
The legislation says it does not apply to any case “based on criminal conduct” or even to civil cases brought by victims of that conduct. And it even specifically spells out that nothing in the bill bars victims of sexual abuse from taking advantage of new laws that give them up to 12 years after reaching age 18 to file suit against their abusers and those who employed them.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Ducey exempted religious services from his orders limiting the size of gatherings. But proponents say they need something in statute to protect against future executive orders.
The bar against governments closing down or limiting worship services is not absolute.
It still would allow the state to impose “neutral health, safety or occupancy requirements” that are issued by state or local governments as long as they “apply to all organizations and businesses that provide essential services.”
But there is an area where religious services would get greater immunity than other gatherings. The language says the state cannot enforce any such requirements that imposes a “substantial burden” on services unless the government can show it is “essential to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
It allows religious organizations to file suit and get not only a court order permitting them to operate but also get compensatory damage and reasonable legal fees.
By 
