More than 20 anti-gay bills have been proposed so far in the current session of the Legislature.  The Tea Party dominated Senate leads the way with Senate Joint  Resolution 10.  That would put a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would mimic the Religious Freedom Restoration Act with some significant changes.  First the aggrieved person would only have to show a burden – not a significant burden as under the RFRA.  Second, the burden is on the government to prove that the burden on religious freedom is in furtherance of a compelling government interest.

A Government may not burden an individual ’s or religious organization ’s freedom of religion or right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief unless the government proves that the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. For purposes of this subsection, the term “burden” includes indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, and denying access to facilities or programs.

As Jay Michaelson of the Daily Beast points out, the proposed amendment might have unintended consequences.

Unlike a lot of legalese, that word [significant] can move mountains. If any burden on free exercise, no matter how slight, is forbidden, then it’s easy for any litigant to claim a de minimis burden and prevail in court. As someone who keeps kosher, for example, it definitely burdens my exercise of religion not to have kosher food at the Alamo. Not a substantial burden, but a burden nonetheless. Bring on the Hebrew National!

Or, to take an example from the RFRA fight in Georgia, suppose my reading of the New Testament tells me I should be able to beat my spouse and child. If all I need to show is any burden, should surely get an accommodation from Texas.

Do I even need to mention Sharia Law here? Another delicious irony: Texas’s conservatives hate gays so much, they’re willing to help Muslim fundamentalists.