Introduction

Arizona legislators have introduced House Bill 4117, a proposal intended to prevent anyone from interfering with religious services and activities. While supporters argue the measure protects the fundamental right to worship without disruption, opponents warn that its broad language could silence free speech and enable anti‑LGBTQ and anti‑abortion protests under the guise of religious protection.

Legislative Background

HB 4117 was crafted in response to rising incidents of antisemitism and disruptions at synagogues, churches, and mosques. Representative Alma Hernandez, a Tucson Democrat, highlighted personal experiences of having to hire police for Shabbat services. The original bill targeted “disturb” or “disquiet” a religious service through indecent protest, but revisions expanded the scope to outdoor and adjacent spaces, defining a “religious activity” in vague terms.

Key Provisions and Penalties

The bill makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to block entry or exit to a place of worship or to create a “protracted commotion, utterance or display” that disrupts a service. A first‑time offense carries up to six months in jail. Repeat offenses or the use of force could elevate the penalty to a Class 6 felony, potentially resulting in up to 1½ years of imprisonment.

Supporters’ Arguments

Senator John Kavanagh, the primary sponsor, emphasizes that the legislation safeguards the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. He notes that many religious groups rent parks or community centers for services, and the bill aims to protect worshippers in those settings. Supporters cite the need to prevent “people getting up close, yelling, and chanting” to disrupt sacred gatherings.

Critics’ Concerns

Democratic senators Analise Ortiz and Mitzi Epstein caution that the expanded definition could shield groups like the Westboro Baptist Church, which conducts anti‑LGBTQ protests that they claim qualify as “religious activity.” They also warn that the bill may protect anti‑abortion protesters at clinics, potentially endangering patients and limiting lawful counter‑protest. Critics argue that the language gives law‑enforcement too much discretion and could infringe on free speech protected by the First Amendment.

Broader Implications

Civil liberties organizations, including the ACLU and the Council on American Islamic Relations, have publicly opposed the bill, fearing it blurs the line between protecting worship and curbing dissent. While the Anti‑Defamation League supports stronger protections for religious sites, the debate highlights a tension between safeguarding faith communities and preserving open public discourse.

Conclusion

Arizona’s HB 4117 reflects a genuine desire to protect worshippers from harassment, yet its expansive wording raises serious questions about the balance between religious freedom and free speech. As the bill moves through the Senate and returns to the House, lawmakers must consider whether tighter definitions can achieve safety without compromising the constitutional rights of all Arizonans.