[ChuckF]

I ain't finding shit. So why don't I make up some shit instead. If I'm reading you correctly, you would broaden "on the ground [of] . . . religion" effectively to include "on the ground [of] . . . religious viewpoint." Normatively this makes sense, and it seems to be consistent with Congressional intent in the 1964 act, and the District court's opinion in Welsh.

The problem with that normatively-appropriate reading, and the problem that it would inevitably encounter, is that Title VII's statutory definition of "religion" gave Congress a second bite at the apple. In order to define this term, Congress said that it "includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief." (This was probably written this way to avoid establishment clause issues.)

If I were representing Bushwood, I would say "Hey, Scalito. Congress had a fucking chance to include lack of religious observance, lack of religious practice, and lack of religious belief in its definition of 'religion.' So not only is non-belief inconsistent with the plain meaning of the term 'religion,' it is also inconsistent with Congress's definition. We don't even have to get to this 'on the ground of' business." And heads would nod vigorously from the bench.

Then you would say "Wait! The Congressional definition isn't exhaustive! It only says what it does include, not what it exclusively includes!" Brows are furrowed.

Then I would say "That's true, but LOL this joker would have the Court read non-religion into the statutory definition of religion! What wouldn't be included in the new judge-made definition of religion! Way to defeat Congressional intent!" More vigorous head nodding.

Then you would say "Hold it, asshole! That's not what I'm asking, I'm just saying that the definition of religion could be reasonably read to include religious viewpoint, and this statute would proscribe discrimination on that basis, which is entirely consistent with Congressional intent." Uh oh, that sounds reasonable. Throat-clearing from the bench.

Then I would say "NO U. Congress could have said that and it didn't! If you've got a problem with that, take it up with your Congressman and leave the Court alone!" Then I would wink at Justice Roberts and my red light would come on.