Additional Commentaries by Peter Biella - 5
  The Court asked a second type question to see if the Ordinances' intention was sincere.

  Did the Ordinances attempt to protect freedom of religion where possible, or did they outlaw much more of Santería than was really necessary to prevent animal cruelty and safeguard public health?

  The Court concluded that the Ordinances' intention was not sincere because the laws were overbroad.  That is, they outlawed far more about Santería practices than was absolutely necessary to prevent the alleged cruelty to animals and harm to the public.

Ordinances are Overbroad

They made almost everything about Santería practices illegal, whether or not the practices had to do with animal cruelty or public health
  By outlawing animal sacrifice, the Ordinances essentially made it illegal for worship to take place in Santería establishments.

  The intention of the Ordinances was clearly to prevent practice of the religion all together.

  That intention is not permissible under the First Amendment.

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