title: Conscience in the public square: The pivoting positions of the USCCB and ACLU around the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
abstract: The debate on the meaning of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is rapidly developing. Taking three snapshots in the bill's history (in 1993 at its origin, in 2014 duringBurwell v. Hobby Lobby, and in 2015 after Obergefell v. Hodges), this essay evaluates the stances taken on the RFRA by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). Although the ACLU initially supported the bill, it now campaigns against it. In contrast the USCCB, once hesitant to endorse the RFRA, fervently defends it today. Evaluating these pivoting positions, this essay suggests that at the heart of the debate on RFRA lies a difference in understanding the right to follow one's conscience in the public square.Lay Summary:This essay evaluates how the ACLU and the USCCB differ in their understanding of conscience. Next, the essay demonstrates that this difference leads to opposing viewpoints on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act today. Although both initially supported the Religious Freedom Restoration Act at its signing in 1993, the ACLU has now disavowed the bill after it had been used to permit following religious-based conscience in the public square.
authors.affiliation: Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
authors.forename: Luke A
authors.identifier: 0000-0003-1821-2258
authors.initials: LA
authors.lastname: Gatta
keywords: ACLU; Burwell v. Hobby Lobby; Conscience; Obergefell v. Hodges; Religious Freedom Restoration Act; Secularism; USCCB