Additional Commentaries by Peter Biella - 4
  The Court needed to find if the Ordinances' intention was sincere.

  Did they truly attempt to prevent all cruelty to animals, or did they only prevent Santería's animal sacrifice?

  Did they truly attempt to safeguard all public health, or did they only (allege to) do it in the case Santería practices?

  The Court concluded that the Ordinances' intention was not sincere because the laws were underinclusive.That is, they did not include an effort to prevent all hazards.

Ordinances are Underinclusive

They are inconsistent because they only outlaw religious reasons for animals to be killed
  Santería animal sacrifice was explicitly forbidden.  Yet many  other causes of animal deaths that were much more cruel were left unchallenged: 
  rats could be poisoned in back yards and left slowly to die, 
  racing grayhound dogs could chase rabbits, often frightening the rabbits to death, 
  animals could be massacred in slaughterhouses.
A Second Case of Underinclusiveness

The ordinances only require the "sanitary" disposal of  sacrificed animal products
Similarly, although Santería was cited for threatening public health, many other alleged threats were not challenged:
    for example, normal meat products could be disposed of in garbage cans, but the disposal of sacrificed animal remains in grabage cans was made illegal because it was said to be hazardous.

Design of the "Court Decision" screens
Design of "Other Documents Cited" screens
 Web View