Do those rights only belong to Christians?
Does it turn our laws into Swiss Cheese? (my emphasis)
RFRA* covers all beliefs, and the First Amendment does not permit the courts to favor some believers over another. That means the RFRA-unleashing arguments that empowered the Green family can be invoked to empower believers with the opposite views. For example, the Satanic Temple, Conservative and Reform Jews, Methodists, and American Baptists have now staked out the argument that their religious beliefs conflict with sweeping restrictions on abortion.
I am curious what the pro-lifers will do with such claims. Do they defend the abortion restrictions they paid for with lobbying and, therefore, argue that RFRA should be watered down for these believers? Or do they stick with a strong RFRA theory, and watch their anti-abortion accomplishments dismantled by the majority that disagrees with them on a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices?
What every legislator and American should understand is this: what happens when conflicting believers invoke RFRA in the same arena is that our duly enacted laws become swiss cheese. No rational system of law, in a country where the vast majority of citizens are believers, can or should encourage believers to roam around and pick and choose the laws that will apply to them. That is what RFRA does and the Supreme Court’s First Amendment doctrine never did, as I discuss in my forthcoming book, God vs. the Gavel: The Perils of Extreme Religious Liberty.*The Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, another gift from Bill Clinton....