Black turned the First Amendment into a mare’s nest and no part of constitutional law is so obscure, so resistant to real-life situations. I suspect that this reasoning simply comes out of the judge’s a—. That his premises do not flow from precedent but from his personal prejudices.
When a Catholic pharmacist refuses to sell contraception, he can’t claim a Catholic conscience objection because he is employed as a pharmacist, but when that same pharmacist wants to volunteer time to help a refugee, he all of a sudden is too Catholic to ask for government money.
It’s in the First Amendment, ya know.