because the act included an exemption: "This subchapter shall not apply to an employer with respect to the employment of aliens outside any State, or to a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities." The individuals responded that permitting a religious organization to discriminate "against employees performing secular, non-religious jobs on the basis of religion would violate the establishment clause of the [F]irst [A]mendment." The district court concluded that the individuals were engaged in non-religious activity but noted that section 702 protected religious organizations in their employment decisions related to any position in the organization, no matter how religious or nonreligious the activity was. The court then addressed whether the exemption violated the Establishment Clause by using the Lemon test. The court ruled that the exemption permitted by section 702 violated the second prong of the Lemon test (principal effect not advancing or inhibiting religion) because the section "singles out religious entities for a benefit, rather than benefiting a broad grouping of which religious organizations are only a part" and "burdens the free exercise rights of employees of religious institutions who work in nonreligious jobs." Supreme Court rulings Majority opinion In reversing the district court on the supposition that section 702 singled out religious entities for a benefit, the Court stated that it had "never indicated that statutes that give special consideration to religious groups are per se invalid" and that "[w]here, as here, government acts with the proper purpose of lifting a regulation that burdens the exercise of religion, we see no reason to require that the exemption come packaged with benefits to secular entities." In addressing the issue of a free exercise burden of employees, the Court noted that "it is a significant burden on a religious organization to require it, on pain of substantial liability, to predict which of its activities a secular court will consider religious." Further, although the appellee's "freedom of choice in religious matters was impinged upon, [] it was the Church (through the COP and the CPB), and not the Government, who put him to the choice of changing his religious practices or losing his job." The Court also reiterated, "A law is not unconstitutional simply because it allows churches to advance religion,