BigDave wrote:Baltimore Hokie wrote:Dave, a law that applies to everyone equally, regardless of religion, is the very DEFINITION of a neutral law. Neutral laws can keep you from doing certain religious things (like prohibit native Americans from eating peyote) or compel you to do things you might not otherwise have done (like paying taxes, not discriminating, etc). But since the laws apply equally to all, they are neutral.
Is a law that requires everyone to bow down and worship Obama neutral so long as it applies to everyone regardless of religion.
Of course, you know that would violate the Establishment Clause.
A law can be neutral and Constitutional: "No one can do peyote." States can make this law and not offend the Free Exercise clause. Feds, not clear since RFRA was passed.
A law can be non-neutral and Constitutional: "No one can do peyote, except for Native Americans in pursuit of their religious beliefs." Controlled Substances Act reads this way.
A law can be non-neutral and Unconstitutional: "EVERYONE can do peyote, except for Native Americans in pursuit of their religious beliefs." This kind of law does not exist, anywhere.
A law can be facially neutral, but non-neutral in practice, and Unconstitutional: "No one can commit animal sacrifice." This was the decision in the Hialeah case.
There has never been a truly neutral law declared Unconstitutional due to the Free Exercise clause alone. "The only decisions in which this Court has held that the First Amendment bars application of a neutral, generally applicable law to religiously motivated action are distinguished on the ground that they involved not the Free Exercise Clause alone, but that Clause in conjunction with other constitutional protections" - quote from the Smith decision.