You know that the Supreme Court has ruled that legal limits on clergy privileges can be set (if it's incidental to something like, say, reporting child abuse) right Fisherman? Employment Division v Smith (1990), right? States can individually choose to accomodate, or they can restrict certain activities.
"It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended"
Is this why we're on totally different pages here?