A Wisconsin Judge dismissed the case against an Amish farmer who refused to comply with the state's "premise registration" law. Emanuel Miller argued that requiring him to enroll his farm and livestock with the government placed him in direct conflict with his religious belief. His Bishop had advised him that such an act is too great an entanglement with modern society, and that the resulting identification number represents a step toward the "Mark of the Beast" foretold in Revelation as the way of the antichrist.
Faced with this clear religious liberty dilemma, Judge Jon Carroll ruled that the State failed to prove that this mandatory registration law is the "least restrictive" way to achieve its otherwise compelling interest: protecting the animal health and food safety. He noted that the system was not shown to be more effective at containing disease outbreaks, and that the law already contains provisions that the Agriculture Department could use to accommodate Miller and other Amish farmers.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has said that “[a]compelling interest is not just a general interest in the subject matter but the need to apply the regulation without exception to attain the purposes and objectives of the legislation.” The premises registration statute allows for exemptions to registration… [based on the number or type of livestock kept by a person or on the type of locations where a person keeps livestock.]
If premises registration is the “only” way to meet the State’s interest, then the statute could not allow for exemptions. The State’s position therefore fails of its own internal inconsistency.
…
It is only the bureaucracy of the DATCP that has chosen not to create exemptions.
