argue, inmate observance of Ramadan, with its requirements for month long daytime fasting, multiple daily prayers and special diets, is wholly incompatible with the SDC boot camp regimen. There is likewise no doubt that the effective implementation of the program for all participants is a valid penological concern and objective. It follows, in summary, that defendants did not violate Blagman’s First Amendment rights by implementing a twenty week boot camp program designed to aid in the rehabilitation of eligible inmates, even though the program had the incidental effect of precluding Blagman from engaging in religious rituals or practices that are inconsistent with the program’s regimen. See, e.g., Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 892, 110 S.Ct. 1595,108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990) (<HOLDING>). C. Intimidation Claim Blagman’s third claim
recognizing that facially neutral statute may contravene the fourteenth amendment if enacted with discriminatory purpose holding that a law did not violate the first amendment because it did not burden the exchange of ideas and noting most laws restricting a states initiative process would not implicate the first amendment holding that facially neutral laws or acts of general applicability do not violate the first amendment merely because of their incidental effects holding that statute which prohibited polygamy did not violate first amendment holding the statutory scheme of two federal laws was not void for vagueness and did not violate equal protection or due process even though the defendants conduct violated both laws