Hailed as a civil liberties victory in 1993, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act later became a tool for legalizing hate under the guise of faith.

August 12, 2025 | #Triangulation

🙏📜

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In 1993, President Bill Clinton stood beside a coalition of civil rights leaders, religious groups, and lawmakers as he signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) into law. Billed as a bipartisan reaffirmation of First Amendment protections, RFRA promised that “government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion.”

But three decades later, that same legislation has been invoked by conservative groups and courts to justify denying services to LGBTQ+ individuals, avoid compliance with contraception mandates, and expand the political power of a narrow religious agenda.

The act’s journey from civil liberty to cultural weapon is a parable of Clinton-era triangulation—and its long, unintended consequences.

A Law Born of Backlash

RFRA was passed in response to the 1990 Supreme Court ruling in Employment Division v. Smith, which held that states could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for using peyote, even in a religious ritual. Outrage came from all corners. Religious conservatives and liberal advocacy groups alike decried the decision as a blow to religious expression1.

The bill passed nearly unanimously. The House approved it by voice vote; the Senate followed, 97–3. Clinton, always a political chameleon, found a sweet spot between the ACLU and evangelical leaders. “Our laws must protect religious freedom,” he declared during the signing ceremony on November 16, 19932.

But as with many Clinton-era policies—welfare reform, the crime bill, NAFTA—the long-term effects diverged sharply from the intent.

Weaponizing RFRA: The Hobby Lobby Shift

RFRA lay dormant for years—until it was revived by litigants seeking religious exemptions from anti-discrimination and healthcare laws. Most notably, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014), the Supreme Court ruled that closely held corporations could deny contraceptive coverage based on religious objections3.

That ruling—built on RFRA’s framework—opened the floodgates. In the years that followed, businesses cited RFRA to justify refusing services to same-sex couples, transgender people, and others whose existence or identity conflicted with the owner’s religious beliefs4.

“It started as a shield for faith,” said Louise Melling of the ACLU. “It became a sword for bigotry”5.

A Global Echo

The international press took notice. The Guardian observed in 2015 that RFRA, once a “humble reaffirmation of religious liberty,” had become “the legal cornerstone of the American right’s cultural pushback”6. In Canada, human rights scholars debated whether similar religious exemptions could take root, warning of a “creeping legal conservatism via cultural import”7.

Foreign and domestic critics alike saw RFRA’s evolution as part of a broader shift—where Clinton’s centrism opened the door for a more extreme post-Obama backlash, including Trump-era judicial appointments who interpreted RFRA broadly to roll back civil rights.

Clinton’s Quiet Legacy

Though Clinton rarely speaks about RFRA today, the law is emblematic of his approach to governance: triangulate, appease, and punt difficult questions to the courts. He framed RFRA as a moral victory but failed to anticipate—or ignored—how it could be manipulated by ideologues.

In the 1990s, this ambiguity played well. Today, it reads as abdication.

“Bill Clinton gave the country a law that said: If you believe God told you to discriminate, maybe that’s okay,” said legal historian Marcia Thurman. “It was never meant to work that way. But the loopholes were built in”8.

Intent vs. Impact

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a case study in the unforeseen fallout of Clintonian compromise. By signing a broadly written, loosely defined law under pressure from both the religious right and the liberal left, Clinton left a legal minefield for future generations to navigate.

Today, RFRA is a rallying cry for both faith-based liberty and anti-LGBTQ+ exclusion. Its origins are noble, its applications increasingly controversial—and its legacy, like much of the Clinton presidency, is steeped in contradiction.

Footnotes

  1. Greenhouse, L. (1990, April 18). Supreme Court backs state on hallucinogen. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/18/us/supreme-court-backs-state-on-hallucinogen.html ↩
  2. Clinton, W. J. (1993, November 16). Remarks on Signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. The American Presidency Project. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu ↩
  3. Liptak, A. (2014, June 30). Supreme Court Rejects Contraceptives Mandate for Some Corporations. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/supreme-court-contraceptives-hobby-lobby.html ↩
  4. Hasenbush, A., Mallory, C., & Sears, B. (2015). The Impact of RFRA Exemptions on LGBT People and Religious Minorities. UCLA School of Law, Williams Institute. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu ↩
  5. Melling, L. (2015, April 1). ACLU: Religious freedom doesn’t give you the right to harm others. ACLU Blog of Rights. https://www.aclu.org ↩
  6. McVeigh, K. (2015, March 31). Indiana law signals growing religious conservatism in US. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com ↩
  7. Lalonde, M. (2016). Exporting Religious Conservatism: U.S. Legal Trends and the Canadian Charter. Canadian Journal of Human Rights, 5(1), 42–57. ↩
  8. Thurman, M. (2020). God’s Law or Man’s? Religious Freedom and the American Courtroom. Cambridge University Press. ↩