From the Federal RFRA:
SEC. 3. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED.
(a) IN GENERAL. -- Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) EXCEPTION. -- Government may burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person --
(1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) JUDICIAL RELIEF. -- A person whose religious exercise has been substantially burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.
Relevant language from the "controversial" Illinois RFRA asserts:
Free exercise of religion protected.
Government may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person (i) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and (ii) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
I'm hosting a contest to coin a new term that symbolizes "malcontents who harbor unreasonable fears about free exercise of religion." Something short and pithy, like counterpart to "homophobe". Or totally perverted new meaning, like the kidnapped and innocuous "gay".
The term should be appropriately politically-incorrect, and tastefully free from any hint of profanity. Any portmanteaus will be considered, as long as it meets the requirement for concise brevity.