rise to the application of a subjective test.” Swanson, 135 F.3d at 701. Such a system is one in which case-by-case inquiries are routinely made, such that there is an “individualized governmental assessment of the reasons for the relevant conduct” that “invite[s] considerations of the particular circumstances” involved in the particular case. Smith, 494 U.S. at 884, 110 S.Ct. 1595. Perhaps the best example of such a system, and indeed the one in which this exception originated, is a system of unemployment benefits which requires claimants to show “good cause” as to why they are unable to find work. In Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963), a Seventh Day Ad . But see Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Newark, 170 F.3d 359, 364-66 (3d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). While of course it takes some degree of
holding that  522 permits states only to adopt uniform exemptions holding that a regulation prohibiting excavations below groundwater level was not a taking because the regulation only limited some forms of development but did not decrease market value holding that because a police department regulation prohibiting beards allowed for medical exemptions but not religious exemptions it was not generally applicable under smith holding that dol regulations related to flsa exemptions are enforceable holding that the districts facial hair regulation was discriminatory as applied to the firefighter although the department was not precluded from promulgating a reasonable grooming regulation equally applied to all requiring beards to be neatly trimmed