A city enacts an ordinance requiring all restaurants to display nutritional information on their menus. Sarah, the owner of a small vegan restaurant, objects to this requirement, claiming it interferes with her religious beliefs that discourage the consumption of certain foods. She refuses to comply with the ordinance. Under the FEC of the First Amendment, which outcome is most likely?
The ordinance restricts Sarah’s religious beliefs by imposing menu labeling requirements.
The ordinance does not address the impact on religiously motivated business practices.
The ordinance serves a legitimate government interest by applying to all types of restaurants.
The ordinance undermines the separation of church and state by enforcing dietary information.
The ordinance is valid as it applies uniformly to all restaurants and serves a legitimate public interest in providing nutritional information. The FEC does not exempt individuals from neutral, generally applicable laws, even if they incidentally affect religious practices. Since the ordinance does not target Sarah’s religious beliefs and applies to all restaurants, it withstands constitutional scrutiny.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is the FEC in the context of the First Amendment?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What constitutes a legitimate government interest in laws like the restaurant ordinance?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does the principle of neutrality apply to laws concerning religious practices?