I'm willing to change my view, I just haven't seen any argument yet that has caused me to do so.

I'm not at all a fan of religion, and I make no secret of that. I think that people should be free to practice their religion, if for no other reason than that history demonstrates that the quickest way to make a religion stronger is to oppress it, and that societies which start banning religion tend to have outcomes worse than those which result from permitting religion to be practiced.

But allowing people to be Christian doesn't mean exempting them from anti-discrimination laws. And I can't see why allowing people to be Jewish means exempting them from animal cruelty laws, or allowing people to practice Native American religions means exempting them from anti-drug laws.

In the last instance, I'm opposed to that law in general and I think society would be better served by legalizing and regulating most if not all recreational drugs, including the drugs some Native American religions view as sacred.

But if they're going to be putting people in the slammer for decades for smoking peyote, I object most strongly to the idea that there's a special class of people who can smoke it without penalty. To me that looks like the law being anything but equal, and the establishment of religious discrimination.

And when the religion in question was a Native American religion, Scalia and the majority of the Court agreed that it was wrong to give members of a religion exemption to laws. Scalia is not exactly what you'd call hostile towards religion, I'd go so far as to classify him as a religious fanatic. So clearly my own distaste for religion is not a requirement for people to hold this view.