The type and you may extent of exemptions. Some decisions apply this special rule if multiple secular exemptions are granted. See, e.g., Horen vmonwealth, 23 Va. App. 735, 743–744, 479 S. Johnston, 924 F. Supp. 1540, 1551–1553 (Neb. 1996). See, e.g., Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214, 1234–1235 (CA11 2004); Fraternal Order of Police Newark Lodge No. 12 v. Newark, 170 F.3d 359, 365 (CA3 1999). And still others have applied the rule where the law, although allowing no exemptions on its face, was widely unenforced in cases involving secular conduct. See, e.g., Tenafly Eruv Assn., 309 F. 3d, at 167–168.
Pinpointing appropriate comparators. To determine whether a law provides equal treatment for secular and religious conduct, two steps are required. First, a court must identify the secular conduct with which the religious conduct is to be compared. Second, the court must determine whether the State’s reasons for regulating the religious conduct apply with equal force to the secular conduct with which it is compared. See Lukumi, 508 U. S., at 543. In Smith, this inquiry undoubtedly seemed straightforward: The secular conduct and the religious conduct prohibited by the Oregon criminal statute were identical. But things are not always that simple.
Cases involving regulations made to sluggish the newest spread out of COVID–19 has actually determined that point household. State and you can regional laws adopted for this reason features usually enforced some other constraints for different kinds of things. Possibly 
spiritual properties was basically placed in a class with specific secular activities, and frequently spiritual properties was basically offered yet another sounding her. To determine whether or not COVID–19 regulations provided natural way to spiritual and you will secular make, it’s been needed seriously to evaluate the fresh limitations towards spiritual properties towards the constraints for the secular items one introduce the same risk from dispersed herpes, and you will distinguishing this new secular points which should be utilized for research has been hotly contested.
Age.2d 553, 557 (1997); Rader v
From inside the South Bay Joined Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 You. S. ___ (2020), where in fact the Legal would not enjoin constraints on religious services, The main Justice’s concurrence compared religious attributes to lectures, series, videos, recreations incidents, and you can theatrical shows. Id., during the ___ (sneak op., at 2). The fresh new dissenters, on the other hand, focused on “grocery stores, food, production facilities, and you can offices.” Id., during the ___ (opinion out of Kavanaugh, J., registered by the Thomas and Gorsuch, JJ.) (sneak op., at step three).
Other people conclude one also you to secular exception will be enough
For the Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, 591 You. S. ___ (2020), Las vegas, nevada defended a tip towering serious restrictions into the attendance from the religious qualities and you may contended that households off praise are going to be in contrast to “concert halls, galleries, art galleries, zoos, aquariums, exchange schools, and you can tech colleges.” A reaction to Crisis Application to own During the, Zero. 19A1070, pp. eight, 14–fifteen. People in it Judge who has actually enjoined this new Las vegas, nevada signal looked to the Nation’s alot more reasonable laws and regulations for casinos, bowling alleys, and you may exercise business. 591 You. S., in the ___–___ (Alito, J., joined because of the Thomas and Kavanaugh, JJ., dissenting) (sneak op., on 6–7).
From inside the Roman Catholic Diocese out-of Brooklyn, 592 You. S. ___, Justices regarding the majority compared domiciles regarding worship that have highest retail institutions, factories, universities, alcoholic beverages places, bicycle repair stores, and you may dogs stores, id., on ___ (sneak op., at the 3); id., within ___ (Gorsuch, J., concurring) (sneak op., on 2), id., from the ___ (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (sneak op., from the 2), while dissenters quoted theaters and you will cinemas, id., on ___ (opinion of Sotomayor, J., entered because of the Kagan, J.) (slip op., at dos).
