Same goes for children in dire need of medical care against their parents religious wishes. BUT I do think, that if the issue is not one of peril to either any individuals health or well being, or the societies as a whole every possible latitude of freedom of religious action should be permissable under the Free expression clause. I think to understand the intent of the framers and founders of the Constitution it is also necessary to review the mindset of the citizenry as a whole at the time of the Constitutions inception. I do not think examining only one or two persons views is sustatainable as was exhibited in the Reynolds case. I think that the Constitutional wording was meant to stand alone on it's literal interpretation and that the framers and founders obviously felt the wording they used was sufficient for further generations to establish their intent.
Alternate interpretations muddle the original intent.
In Cantwell, Justice Roberts, clearly makes the point that freedom to act is not absolute. And I agree as previously stated because of issues such as danger to individuals or society as a whole. This is the main reason I feel that each case needs to be examined on a case by case basis vs a set test which can be interpreted quite differently depending on the members of the court and their personal view points. In closing I would like to site what I feel would be a valid line of argument to produce a finding for Wisconsin. See what you think.