I do, and I understand that something this blatantly unconstitutional (and widespread enough to be notable) would get slapped down by the courts super hard before being actually acted on.
Do you understand how things work in this country? When's the last time there was a statewide policy like this that explicitly targeted people of one particular religion? Especially kids going to state schools?
It wouldn't target a particular religion, it would be a general policy protecting all children's right to education. LDS people being impacted would be an unfortunate side effect, not the promoted intention of the policy.
I genuinely can't tell if you're being disingenuous here. I'm not personally stressed about the rights of LDS people, but the procedural scenario I'm describing isn't even remotely far-fetched.
This makes it sound like it is indeed targeting a particular religion:
> An anti-LDS government official in control of education in some state (say, California) could take those findings and use them to justify a new policy that all LDS children are required to attend sex-ed classes in school
If what you meant was "all children, including LDS children" I think it could've been phrased a bit more clearly, because it sounds very targeted. That's the part I objected to.
But yeah if you mean, "secretly/implicitly targeting" like the hijab ban in France that's nominally a religious symbol ban, I could see that happening.
The intent of the law was obviously to get rid of hijabs. That's the context, and nobody really disputes that, even though the text of the law doesn't explicitly target any particular religion.
I'm not sure I'd call it an extreme symbol, exactly, but I'm not a fan of the culture behind sexist cultural policies like that, where women are treated radically differently from men.
Are hijabs focused on beyond what would be expected from the fact that they are extreme - they cover the user blocking identification, they prevent socialization, they stigmatize the wearer, and unlike some symbols (ex: a Sikh turban) they're forced upon the wearers by non-wearers - they signify the wearer is a possession who must be kept "clean" for her purchaser.
It's reasonable that hijabs would have been the straw that broke the electoral camel's back, and the focus of most of the enforcement, while the law is a general law without undue focus on hijabs. Hijabs are regressive in a way yarmulkas are not.
Do you understand how things work in this country? When's the last time there was a statewide policy like this that explicitly targeted people of one particular religion? Especially kids going to state schools?