That's the point of the 1st Amd., you do not need to justify your otherwise legal religious practice to the government. This is because one person's grave sin t

That's the point of the 1st Amd., you do not need to justify your otherwise legal religious practice to the government. This is because one person's grave sin that leads to eternal damnation may be another person's minor inconvenience. The importance or merit of a particular otherwise legal religious practice is not determinable by a US government. For example, the US government is not in the business of interpreting the bible and telling Christians how to practice their religion. The government only goes as far as determining if a person's belief system is a religion (broadly interpreted), and if the religious practice in question is otherwise legal (to exclude obvious overreaches such as child marriage, and such). Plaintiffs do not need to prove a restriction of a religious practice causes irreparable harm because there is no way to prove it, they just declare it. E.g., Prisons have to honor the religious dietary restrictions of inmates. The government can't say it is not important, here eat your ham sandwich like everyone else.