Good points:
I think
Wisconsin v. Yoder is instructive here:
In that case, the Amish objected to truancy laws which required their children to go to school. The Amish in that case typically required their children to stop attending school beyond middle school and learn the way of life.
The SCOTUS held:
Quote:
|
State has an interest in ‘universal education’ but it must be BALANCED when it impinges on a ‘fundamental right and interest.’ To assure that there is a state interest of sufficient magnitude.
|
(My broad summation copied from my notes).
I think here, you will be hard pressed to make an argument for wearing ski masks--but a burkha may be the expression of other unpopular values.
Of course, you run in to the issue of
Quote:
|
Problem with TWO PEOPLE WITH IDENTICAL BEHAVIOR—WITH ONLY ONE GETTING BENEFIT BECAUSE HE COUCHES HIS BEHAVIOR IN RELIGION.
|
Sherbert v. Verner (In that case a woman was fired for not working on Saturdays on religious 'sabbath' grounds--question was whether she could claim unemployment and whether her religious objection was 'good cause' for being fired or not).
Here, we don't have an issue of a slew of 7/11 robberies with robbers wearing Burkhas, so I don't think there's much of a compelling state interest....
=======================
We can also do wearing burkha as a freedom of expression issue (when does action become expression) but...I'll stop rambling for now.