I've said for a while that freedom of religion only applies if the government doesn't "really, really" want you to do something. That's the only real standard the courts seem to follow.
As evident by this quote in the article:
"...the lower court must apply strict scrutiny, meaning the government must prove that the county regulation serves a compelling governmental interest and that the regulation is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. "
"the government must prove that the county regulations serves a compelling governmental interest"
Literally saying that as long as the government interest is "compelling," freedom of religion is null and void.
I've said for a while that freedom of religion only applies if the government doesn't "really, really" want you to do something. That's the only real standard the courts seem to follow.
As evident by this quote in the article:
"...the lower court must apply strict scrutiny, meaning the government must prove that the county regulation serves a compelling governmental interest and that the regulation is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. "
Literally saying that as long as the government interest is "compelling," freedom of religion is null and void.
What a clown world.