The endgame of the logic used by the SCOTUS to interpret the RFRA

[erglerbergler]

Taking our assumptions:

1. "Deeply held" religious beliefs can be imagined that would make absolutely any law a burden on a plaintiff, these beliefs need not necessarily have any factual basis

2. Testing the sincerity of said beliefs is often impossible

Conclusions

Absolutely every law affecting a plaintiff with said religious beliefs must pass both requirements in the RFRA

From the first amendment, any benefits (relating to exemptions from laws) obtained for one religion cannot be denied to others.


Thus, all laws passed by Congress are for practical purposes invalid unless they pass both requirements in the RFRA, to do otherwise would violate the first amendment.


I imagine some interesting litigation may follow. They may end up regretting not just declaring the RFRA unconstitutional.

[MisterP]

1. that's actually a thing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism
it used to be a Baptist thing, even (and motivated like a metric ton of peasant revolts, even in Japan)