The way I understand it, you can’t single out one specific group (equal protection). So the law would have been ok, if they had not put in the extra step of naming sharia.
The way I understand it, then, when a liberal, Democratic judge approves the implementation of Sharia in certain communities, the local municipality cannot object because it is not specifically banned in the OK Constitution. My head hurts in fathoming this destructive, anti-State ruling that denies a concerned citizenry from exercising its constitutional prerogative in a totally legal manner. Sharia is a religious set of laws, not the ROP itself.
Sharia is not a “specific group or people”; it is a codified set of religious laws. The Constitution very specifically allows and demands that it not be instituted.
The brazenness and idiocy aside, you may be correct. Plus, to date, there have been no instances in OK which could have caused this suit. OK was correct, imho, but probably premature. They were asking the court to rule on a hypothetical.
We must remain on alert, however. The CAIR types are looking for a tent, under which they can slip their camel's nose....under the guise of political correctness, victimhood, religious persecution, blah, blah, blah.... They're exploiting the wonderful features of our constitution and using them against us and it pisses me off !