L.Ed.2d 747 (2015); City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 532-36, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997). This remains true today for all cases but those governed by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). See Holt, 135 S.Ct. at 859-60; Stormans, Inc. v. Wiesman, 794 F.3d 1064, 1076 n. 4 (9th Cir.2015). 14 . The court recognizes the other motivation behind this act, namely "to ensure that California residents make their personal reproductive health care decisions knowing their rights and the health care services available to them.” AB 775 § 2. But a law that aims to regulate religious conduct for distinctive treatment is not rendered constitutional simply because its stated purpose is benign or neutral. See Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 534, 113 S.Ct. 2217 (<HOLDING>). 15 . Although the legislature discussed CPC
holding laws that target religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality holding that religious exercise is any exercise of religion whether or not compelled by or central to a system of religious belief and that the use building or conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise shall be considered  religious exercise holding that compliance with oneperson onevote requirement under fourteenth amendment of federal constitution does not excuse compliance with fifteenth amendment of federal constitution holding that limitations placed upon the religious activities of two prison groups found to be religious organizations were reasonable under the circumstances holding that substantial compliance with notice is sufficient