Without getting too fancy about it, it's a nonstarter, and I'm not sure that even if you could show wholly religious (subjective) motivation that would do it. I think you'd probably have to show no (objective) secular purpose, that there was no possible or reasonable non religious purpose the practice might serve. This link might help.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/theocracy.htm
--- Chuck <chuck at mutualaid.org> wrote:
> Wendy Lyon wrote:
>
> > That's a non-starter I think. The fact that a
> restriction advances a
> > religious idea doesn't make it, ipso facto, a
> violation of the
> > establishment clause. You'd have to show that the
> restriction is
> > pretty much entirely religiously motivated. Strip
> club opponents could
> > easily dredge up a few Dworkinites to counter that
> argument.
>
> But it's pretty easy to show that religious groups
> and individuals
> almost always spearhead these campaigns. They are
> clearly using their
> religious beliefs to use the government to enforce
> their morality on
> adult businesses.
>
> Chuck
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting