Stared at this tweet for quite a while trying to figure out why I was tagged in it before realizing, Ohhh, that's probably supposed to be @Slate. https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1358113991533473798

That said—on the off chance Stern was actually looking to promote an alternative viewpoint!—I happen to have one on offer.

To the extent the Court is reversing itself on Employment Divison v. Smith, here's what I have to say about it: About damn time.

It is certainly fair to say of the Smith decision that it "is widely despised by today’s conservatives."

Another thing you could say about it is that it was widely despised by *everyone* at the time it was handed down.

Congress was so horrified by the precedent in that ruling that it immediately moved to enact, on a bipartisan basis, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

How bipartisan was RFRA? Well, the vote in the Senate was 97-3.

When then-President Bill Clinton inked it into law, he included an absolutely gushing signing statement about the importance of protecting religious liberty:

Full text here — I encourage you to read it! https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/WCPD-1993-11-22/pdf/WCPD-1993-11-22-Pg2377.pdf

And if you're interested in these issues, you might also enjoy my long magazine feature from April 2017, which walks through the relevant jurisprudential history: https://reason.com/2017/03/23/christians-started-the-wedding/