create an oral argument regarding the state of olympus v. mindy vo . in regards to issue 2 mmajority and dissent( no sources or citations) just try very best 
issue 2 Majority:
Issue: Whether Olympus’s “REAP WHAT YOU SOW Act” as applied to Respondent violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution including whether Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith should be revisited?
Rule: See Free Exercise Clause
Employment Division v. Smith: Separates belief from conduct and the government may limit religiously motivated individual conduct so long as the law was generally applicable and not motivated by religious animus.
Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave. v. City of Hialeah: Strict scrutiny is the test if the law is not neutral or generally applicable. A law that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment or advances legitimate governmental interests only against conduct with a religious motivation will survive strict scrutiny only in rare cases.
Carson v. Makin-2022-Indirect coercion or penalties on the free exercise of religion, not just outright prohibitions.
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia included negative treatment of Smith-indicating it was erroneous.
Application: Ms. Is member of COB religion, which specifically values birth control because it advances her religious belief of reducing population growth. The RWYS act prohibited her use of contraception, and she was prosecuted. Strict should apply, which the RWYS law fails to satisfy because the exceptions included render the law neither neutral nor generally applicable.  The law was meant to declare contraception immoral, which is diametrically opposed to COB.
Conclusion: RWYS law is unconstitutional
Conclusion: Free Exercise Clause was violated by the Reap What you Sow Act.
Issue 2 Dissent:
Issue: Whether Olympus’s “REAP WHAT YOU SOW Act” as applied to Respondent violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution including whether Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith should be revisited?
Rule: Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 166 (1878) “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.”. This was a polygamy case, in which the court upheld a prohibition against polygamy, and as a result of this decision, hundreds of church leaders were jailed, and Congress dissolved the LDS Church and seized most of its property until the Church finally agreed to abandon polygamy. The main concern here was that such allowances would “make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”
The rule of law upon which society is based need not–indeed it cannot–bow to the Free Exercise Clause. For more than three decades, the Court’s free exercise jurisprudence has been controlled by its holding in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). There, the Supreme Court drew a
line that separated religious belief from religiously motivated conduct. The standard announced in Smith allowed the government to limit religiously motivated conduct so long as the law was generally applicable and neutral (not motivated by animus toward religion).
Application: The REAP WHAT YOU SOW Act passes the Smith test. The REAP WHAT YOU SOW Act is a generally applicable law that is neutral in its application. Its limits apply to all citizens in all 18
circumstances and provide for limited exceptions related only to health. Where the majority finds animus in the exceptions described in the facts, I find exemptions guided by good common sense rather than a desire to harm anyone or any group. Moreover, they do not favor any one religion
over another. They are neutral and generally applicable. Supra, at 3. The legislative intent for the REAP WHAT YOU SOW Act included traditional purposes such as morality and public safety.
Religious considerations (whether pro or con) do not appear anywhere in the record. The law contains nothing that interferes with religious belief. And, any impact on religiously motivated conduct is merely incidental. Accepting Ms. Vo’s claim would allow her religious beliefs to override the laws of the state and the will of the people.
Conclusion: Free Exercise Clause was not violated by the Reap What you Sow Act.