I understand what your saying but I disagree. It was not necessary that the SC believe what the plaintiffs said about their belief. It was only necessary that they thought it was illegal to prevent the adherence to those beliefs. The SC could have believed that life begins at 40 and still find for the plaintiff. Freedom of religion means nothing if not the freedom to hold to beliefs that are not accepted or proven.
Oh My Goodness!!!
Then PLEASE show me where the majority *rejected* the plaintiff’s *argument* in their favorable ruling for them, but instead ruled in their favor based solely on something ELSE!?!?!!!!!???