AZ proposal would outlaw interfering with 'religious activities'

House Bill 4117 is designed to deal with what several legislators said has been a rise in antisemitism. Sen. Alma Hernandez said that trend has spilled over into issues at synagogues.

"None of us want to be disturbed when we're at a religious service,'' said the Tucson Democrat, who said she's seen that as someone who has served on the board of her synagogue.

"We had to, unfortunately, hire an actual police officer to be present every time we've had a Shabbat service,'' Hernandez said.

The original version of HB 4117, when approved by the House, used language about making it illegal to "disturb'' or "disquiet'' a religious service, and ran into issues about whether its prohibitions against things like "profane'' speech and unnecessary noise unfairly infringed on First Amendment rights.

So Sen. John Kavanagh, a Fountain Hills Republican, wrote new language he said would resolve those issues.

But when the revised bill came before the full Senate, Sen. Analise Ortiz said that only made things worse.

"This original text was a simple misdemeanor for indoor disruption,'' said the Phoenix Democrat. "The amendment has now expanded it to outdoor, adjacent spaces, covering an undefined, protracted commotion near any religious activity.''

Kavanagh said expanding it beyond the actual churches, synagogues, mosques and other houses of worship is necessary.

In his home community, he said, a religious group rents a section of a city park for an Easter sunrise service. Similarly, he said the law would protect services even if they were held in a room at a community center.

Not just religious services, but activities

Ortiz said she sees quite a different scenario. She noted that the new version of HB 4117 would protect not just religious services but "religious activities.''

Consider, she said, the Westboro Baptist Church. It is known for picketing the funerals of gay people with signs saying things like God hates homosexuals. 

"People might claim that that's religious activity,'' Ortiz said, which she said would potentially allow police to cite anyone who might seek to interrupt that group's activities with chanting or singing if officers believe it's interfering with what parishioners are doing.

Ditto, she said, of the activities of some anti-abortion groups who may be praying outside of clinics.

Ortiz is not alone in her concerns about the breadth of the measure.

"There's a Planned Parenthood clinic in my district,'' said Sen. Lauren Kuby, a Tempe Democrat. "It's often the site of protests with people spouting religious themes, shall we say, and trying to interfere with patients getting their health care.''

The federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act already makes it illegal to use force, physical obstruction or other activities designed to injure, intimidate or interfere with people going into a facility. Kuby said she fears what might happen if HB 4117 gives those protesters new rights based on the measure's protections for religious activities.

"My concern is this bill would really put abortion patients in greater danger of harassment and violence than they're already under,'' Kuby said. "It will allow protesters, say, to gather outside a privately owned Planned Parenthood clinic, on a public parking lot. And as long as they're assembled for a vaguely defined religious activity, they will be protected.''

That, she said, could mean someone who interrupts what is happening, even just to speak to a protester or mutter some comment, could be classified as having interfered with a religious activity.

A first-time offense would be a Class 1 misdemeanor, carrying a potential penalty of six months in jail. But a second offense — or any offense committed by two or more people — would carry a maximum penalty of a year and a half in state prison.

'Stops people from interfering with worship'

Kavanagh said the concerns about the breadth of the proposal are not justified.

He said the first part of the legislation deals with issues that have broad support: that it should be against the law to obstruct, block or impede another person's ability to enter or exist in a place of religious worship.

As to the rest of it — the parts that apply to religious services or activities — Kavanagh said a violation would occur only if someone makes "protected commotion, utterance or display'' that disrupts the religious service or worship. And he said a protest of any type "does not become a religious service because somebody says a prayer in the middle of a protest.''

Kavanagh said he's aiming to protect something more basic. "I don't know when in our society it became OK for people to get up close to people worshiping and begin yelling and chanting to disrupt their religious service,'' he said.

"The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion,'' Kavanagh said. "This stops people from interfering with religious worship.''

That's true, said Sen. Mitzi Epstein, a Tempe Democrat. But she worried the definitions are too broad — particularly the idea it would cover a religious service being conducted in a park and how that could affect others in that same park exercising their own First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and assembly.

"One group might plan a rally to protest the current president or the current governor,'' Epstein said.

At the same time, she said, another group could say a ramada in that same park is its designated place of worship. And the wording of HB 4117, said Epstein, could result in the other group being charged with disrupting a religious service or activity.

"We do want to protect our freedom of religion,'' she said. "But we do not want to trample freedom of speech when we're trying to protect religion.''

Epstein said the bill in its current form should be scrapped and replaced with something better.

That wasn't the position of Sarah Kadar, deputy regional director of the Anti-Defamation League. She told lawmakers new laws are needed.

"Frequent violent clashes between protesters and congregants have drawn considerable attention,'' Kadar said. "Incidents at synagogues, churches and mosques and other institutions of faith have proven to be dangerous.''

Rep. Alexander Kolodin acknowledged the "disturbing resurgence of antisemitism'' in the United States.

"I find that very unfortunate,'' said the Scottsdale Republican, saying he appreciates "the good faith efforts of my colleagues to address it.''

But Kolodin, who is Jewish, said this kind of legislation isn't the answer to any part of the problem.

"We only make antisemitism worse when we crack down on First Amendment rights because that makes people resent the Jewish people,'' he said.

The changes the Senate made to the bill still need to be reviewed by the House.