https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/supreme-court-alito-religious-beliefs-rcna139571Scotus declines to take up a case, but Alito writes that they make take up a future case in a similar vein-
when a juror is struck presumptively for no reason beyond they state their religious belief that homosexuality is a sin, in a case involving a lesbian.
Follow this same logic and you'd be allowed to strike any religious jurors for any number of orthodox beliefs they are required to hold as members of their faith, that conflict with circumstances of the case. In the end you might only wind up with atheists being allowed on juries.
From the case:
Quote
At the beginning of voir dire, Finney’s attorney asked all
the jurors what he characterized as “a tricky question,”
namely, whether any of them “went to a conservative Christian church” where “it was taught that people [who] are homosexua[l] shouldn’t have the same rights as everyone else”
because “what they did” was “a sin. The
question was indeed “tricky” because it conflated two separate issues: whether the prospective jurors believed that homosexual conduct is sinful and whether they believed that
gays and lesbians should not enjoy the legal rights possessed by others. In response to this question, some potential jurors raised their hands, and Finney’s lawyer then
questioned them individually.
During this phase of voir dire, Juror 4, a pastor’s wife,
stated that “homosexuality, according to the Bible, is a sin.”
But she quickly added: “So is gossiping, so is
lying.” Ibid. “[N]one of us can be perfect. And so I’m here
because it’s an honor to sit in here and to perhaps be a part
of, you know, a civic duty.” Ibid.
Juror 13 similarly stated that he believes homosexuality
is a sin because “it’s in the Bible.” Id., at 33a. But he followed by noting that “every one of us here sins. . . . It’s just
part of our nature. And it’s something we struggle with,
hopefully throughout our life.” Id., at 33a–34a. And the
fact that it is a sin “has really nothing to do with—in a negative way with whatever this case is going to be about.” Id.,
at 34a.
Finney’s counsel moved to strike these jurors for cause,
arguing that “there’s no way . . . somebody [who] looks at a
gay person and says . . . you are a sinner” could ever fairly
consider a case involving a lesbian plaintiff. Id., at 43a.
The trial judge granted that motion. She noted that both
jurors said “that they could follow the law,” id., at 45a, and
she did not suggest that she disbelieved them. Nevertheless, she concluded that she should “err on the side of caution,” and she therefore dismissed Jurors 4 and 13 because
there were “enough jurors left” without them. Ibid
Notably, the prosecutor completely failed to test for members of other faiths like islam and judaism that regard homosexuality as a sin, creating a clear form of religious test and discrimination against one sect.
But it still also shows a clear cut case of someone exhibiting a religious belief because its in the holy text, without any sign of prejudice or inability to rule impartially, and courts are supposed to be required to take jurors at their good word else the jury system falls apart.