Order of Police indicated that the police department was discriminating against religiously motivated requests to grow beards, the Borough’s invocation of the often-dormant Ordinance 691 against conduct motivated by Orthodox Jewish beliefs is “sufficiently suggestive of discriminatory intent,” Fraternal Order of Police, 170 F.3d at 365, that we must apply strict scrutiny. See Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 546, 113 S.Ct. 2217. The Borough nonetheless contends thai three aspects of this case-the plaintiffs use of government property, the lack of e "substantial burden" on the plaintiffs' religious freedom, and the "optional" nature of the eruv-place it outside the framework of Lukumi and iple is that “ ‘the Free Exercise Clause is written in terms of what the government cannot do to the 002) (<HOLDING>); cf. Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ.
holding that discrimination based on religion is subjected to strict scrutiny whether a claim arises under the establishment clause the free exercise clause of equal protection clause holding that possession of marijuana is not protected by the free exercise clause of the first amendment holding that free exercise clause bars state from making college scholarships contingent on recipients not majoring in theology holding that free exercise clause prohibits state from devaluing religious reasons for seeking unemployment benefits holding that free exercise clause did not require government to grant religious exemption from generally applicable religionneutral statutory requirement that welfare recipients furnish their social security numbers where no individualized exemptions were allowed