The American Civil Liberties Union said Wednesday it expects a plethora of so-called “religious freedom” bills to be introduced in state legislatures nationwide next year, including bills that would allow faith-based and other nonprofit agencies to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples in the placement of foster children.

“Now mind you, this is even if the agencies are receiving state funds to perform these duties, and even if their adoption or foster care arrangement would be in the best interests of the child,” said Eunice Rho, an advocacy and policy counsel for the ACLU. “We saw pretty big fights on this particular issue in Alabama and Florida in 2015, and we expect that to continue into 2016.”

That’s an idea that could capture the attention of lawmakers in Kansas, where the Department of Children and Families has faced allegations of discriminating against gay and lesbian couples, a charge that DCF officials have strenuously denied. Nevertheless, the Legislative Post Audit Committee tentatively agreed last week to authorize a wide-ranging audit of DCF practices in its foster care and adoption programs, including the allegations of anti-gay discrimination.

“I believe there are three states that currently have these kinds of laws, and (those are) North Dakota, Virginia and Michigan,” Rho said.

“I think there are a few usual suspects that try and shop these laws around,” she said. “I couldn’t tell you if they’re all completely coordinated, but the organizations that tend to push for these laws include the Family Policy Council affiliates in the state.”

In Kansas, Rep. Steve Brunk, R-Wichita, who chairs the House Federal and State Affairs Committee, which deals with hot-button social issues, recently accepted a job as executive director of the Kansas Family Policy Council, a conservative group with ties to the Colorado-based Focus on the Family. KFPC describes its mission as, “To strengthen Kansas families by providing resources that defend and promote Christian values and equip citizens to positively impact their communities and the state.”

According to a report Wednesday by KWCH-TV in Wichita, Brunk has said said he will resign his House seat effective Jan. 4. Brunk did not immediately return phone calls from the Journal-World to confirm that report.

Brunk had earlier told the Wichita Eagle that he wouldn’t necessarily have to resign because he would not be acting as a lobbyist for the group. The newspaper quoted him last week as saying, “One of the things that they want to do is impact legislation and so how better to do that than to have the person who handles all of that legislation actually be in the Legislature and actually be chairman of the committee?”

The foster care and adoption legislation is only one of several categories of religious freedom bills the ACLU said it expects to crop up next year. Another, which made headlines in Kansas and Missouri last year, would require public colleges and universities to fund student organizations that don’t conform to their schools’ own nondiscrimination policies.

“We saw bills like these in Kansas and Missouri in 2015,” Rho said. “We should anticipate some activity in those states in the upcoming year as well.”

Other types of religious freedom bills the ACLU says it is monitoring include:

• State versions of legislation pending in Congress known as the “First Amendment Defense Act,” or FADA, that would shield individuals or businesses from “adverse governmental consequences” for discrimination, including the loss of government benefits, government contracts or licenses.

• Bills that would allow government officials to exempt themselves from having to perform marriage-related duties for couples if that official objects to the marriage on religious grounds, a response to a recent controversy in Kentucky where Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis refused to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples until she was forced to do so by a federal court.

• And bills to allow for-profit businesses to refuse goods or services to same-sex couples based on religious grounds, a response to a controversy in Colorado where a baker was fined for refusing to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding.