It doesn't really matter if you do. Every court in the land recognizes that a government cannot behave unconstitutionally simply by not passing legislation in support of its unconstitutional acts.Now you're just going around in circles. You start off with a premise - that his action is unconstitutional - and then use it to "prove" your conclusion that...his action is unconstitutional.
I explained my reasoning, so now it's time to explain yours, if you can.
No - you said it can't be unconstitutional because there is no "law." Using that logic, if a principal bars a Muslim from entering a public school, that is not unconstitutional unless there is legislation authorizing the decision. If the state spends money to hand out the Koran at school, that is not unconstitutional unless there is legislation authorizing the decision. If the a sheriff arrests me for "disturbing the peace" because I am praying on the sidewalk, that is not unconstitutional unless there is a law against praying on the sidewalk.
Either a state actor can violate the Constitution without specific legislation authorizing the behavior, or they can't. You say they can't. Every court in the land says otherwise.
As for your definition of "religion," you sound like Judge Moore. Guess what? A religion is not limited to a formal organization, no matter how much you want to say that it is.