This is why "religious liberty" was an ill-conceived concept to begin with.

There is ultimately no way to reliably differentiate a "religious" belief from any other belief - if for no other reason than that the Constitution doesn't define a difference. And that leads us to play these games to prove that certain actions are built on whatever the court will deem are stereotypically "religious" enough. And when we have to resort to play games like this, that's an obvious red flag that the law was written incorrectly in the first place. The system is broken, and it starts with the fact that the law is poorly written.

I said "religious liberty" was an ill-conceived concept, and the reason why, is because it's incomplete. Because the thing is, no one ever really needs or wants "religious" liberty per se in the first place. What we really need, is the "freedom to think and act in whatever way makes sense to us in order to pursue happiness, insofar as we don't infringe on other people's freedom to do the same". We don't need to invoke the word "religion" to claim the same rights and more. But what we do need is a law that clearly states people's right to pursue their own happiness, and that sets the boundary of that right when it infringes on others.

I wrote an article related to this a couple weeks ago: https://medium.com/@nebulasaurus/freedom-of-religion-was-a-bad-idea-all-along-f236181db33c