I see what you're saying, but your interpretation is incorrect. I don't mean that to be condescending, and I'm not speaking from personal opinion but from deep familiarity with the case law interpreting the religion clauses.
This law does not favor any religion over another, at least not as the courts have interpreted the establishment clause. It creates a rule that applies equally to all religions, allowing persons of any faith to express that faith if they so choose. It would be a stunning departure from Establishment Clause precedent to hold that this law is constitutionally problematic.
As for "segregating a portion of society for removal of rights," I can't agree with that either. I've said this before, but it bears repeating because it's not very well understood: there is no general right to be free from discrimination. Maybe there should be, but there just isn't. You can be discriminated against because you're fat or thin, tall or short, beautiful or ugly, own a dog or don't own a dog, or for any other reason except a reason specifically deliniated in a state or federal statute, such as race, gender, ethnicity, age (in some cases), religion, disabilityetc. These are called "protected classes." Sexual orientation is not a protected class under Federal anti-discrimination laws -- though as I said earlier, EEOC has, as a matter of policy,equated it with sex for employment purposes.
Freedom 'of' religion also includes the right not to have a religion.
By suggesting that a state statue is constitutional that ignores the idea that freedom 'of' religion does not preclude someone choosing 'no' religion is ignorant of the intent of the first amendment.
They were coming from a country that REQUIRED adherence to a specific religion, or some other 'approved' religion. The idea of having to believe, or be shunned, jailed, and tortured, was driving a lot of the need to leave England.
To come to a 'New Land', and then enshrine a national religion is ridiculous.
The 'intent' was to limit religion and its entanglements with politics. To not have one religion 'win' over any others. It was to not have one religion, or a subset of all religions, seek to corral and discriminate against one group of people.
The only exemption to that was for slavery, but that was a separate issue at the time.
So, sure, keep declaring it legal.
Their new hatred based law has as much of a chance at surviving a SCOTUS examination as a law passed to do the same to red heads, or people with green eyes. It's patently unconstitutional.
Although, I do have to add that THIS supreme court could actually throw all common sense to the wind and side with this crazy law, and it would make it legal. For now...
Hell, segregation was deemed legal by one supreme court, only to have that decision overturned by the next one.
The law is 'fluid' in this country, and it actually gives me hope. Hope that sanity will win the day...
