This SCOTUS case spoke to me about religious freedom.
The Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye leased land in Hialeah, Florida and planned to establish a church, school, and cultural center there. They would bring their practice of Santeria, which included the ritual sacrifice of animals, into the area. Animal sacrifice is practiced at birth, marriage, and death rites. It is also used for curing the sick and other annual ceremonies. As a response to this, the city of Hialeah passed several ordinances prohibiting animal sacrifice. The Church claimed that this violated their First Amendment rights to freely exercise their religion.
The Court unanimously invalidated the city ordinances that outlawed animal sacrifices.
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/luku_v_hail.htmlHere's why it spoke to me: You have a group of people (the city of Hialeah) who were, no doubt, vigorously opposed to this Santeria practice of animal sacrifice at their community center. Sound familiar ? On the other side is the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, who said these ceremonies were integral to their worship. I'm sure at least a few of the citizens of Hialeah (which is a burb of Miami) told the Church to move so their "sensibilities" would not be offended. Of course, the analogy is not perfect here, but you can see the conflict between the "community sensibility"/WTC "sacred ground" argument and Santeria/Islam.
The full decision is here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&friend=%3C%FRIEND%%3E%20%20&linkurl=%3C%LINKURL%%3E&graphurl=%3C%GRAPHURL%%3E&court=US&case=/data/us/508/520.html