A case making its way through the courts:
"In January, Border Patrol agents walked up to a ramshackle old building on the outskirts of a small town in Arizona's Sonoran Desert. They found three men.
Two were Central Americans who had crossed the border illegally. The third was an American — a university lecturer and humanitarian activist named Scott Warren.
Warren was arrested and ultimately charged with two federal criminal counts of harboring illegal migrants and one count of conspiracy to harbor and transport them. Warren has pleaded not guilty.
Warren's arrest briefly made headlines amid the partisan tug of war over the administration's immigration policy before fading into the background.
But his legal team's decision to stake out part of his defense on religious liberty grounds has made the case a clash between two of Attorney General Jeff Sessions' top priorities: cracking down on illegal immigration and defending religious liberty...."
" ...One aspect of Warren's defense is based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, also known as RFRA. At root, Warren is saying that his faith compels him to offer assistance to people in dire need, including immigrants....
"...As attorney general, Sessions has taken up the banner of religious liberty for the Trump administration.
Last year, Sessions issued a memo with guidance on protections for religious liberty in federal law.
And he called religious liberty America's "first freedom" in a July speech and vowed to aggressively protect it. He also announced the creation of a task force to help the Justice Department accomplish that goal....
.... "There's a public face of this government, which is very protective of religious liberty, and then the real work they're doing is only protecting the religious liberty rights of those who are religious conservatives, not of religious progressives," said Katherine Franke, director of the Public Rights/Private Conscience Project at Columbia Law School..." Excerpted from an NPR article
Basically, here is a case the DoJ is tackling. One mans "religious convictions" (intent of RFRA) stacked against the hypocritical DoJ enforcement of immigration laws.
Is there an obvious (and wrong) bias when it comes to "protecting" religious freedom?
I say there most certainly is. As long as you are a "Christian" right wing nut job, you can use "religious freedom" and "Christian persecution" to protect your bigoted opinions and practices, but god forbid you are a progressive practicing your faith...
Absolute hypocrisy at its finest. Interesting to see how this one plays out.