Practice question
A claimant establishes a sincere religious practice burdened by a licensing condition. The State supplies evidence of a compelling safety interest. The court also finds, on the record, that a specific accommodation would achieve that interest equally effectively with less interference in religious exercise. Officials nevertheless insist that mentioning safety necessarily validates the original condition. Which conclusion follows under the stipulated test?
- Any reference to safety defeats religious freedom.
- The State has not satisfied the least-restrictive-means requirement merely by proving the interest.
- No safety rule can ever burden religion.
- Every licensing condition is an establishment of religion.
- A sincere belief automatically establishes liability against every official.
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution, Article III, section 5, https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
- Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, June 22, 2006 Resolution, https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/am_p-02-1651_2006.html
- Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819 et al., April 8, 2014, religious freedom discussion, https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_204819_2014.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.