> This might even be protected by religious freedom. It's not. Religious practices in violation of social duties or subversive of good order are not protected

> This might even be protected by religious freedom. It's not. Religious practices in violation of social duties or subversive of good order are not protected under free exercise of religion (Reynolds v. United States). In particular, it's a nigh-certainty that discrimination in matters of employment based on caste will be ruled illegal under Title VII (a fortiori, even employer or customer's preference for individuals of a particular _religion_ cannot be taken into account; a fortiori intra-religious preferences will not be taken into account either. This is almost certainly what will happen in California v. Cisco).