Any changes to constitutional protections must be judged by strict scrutiny application, I have my doubts this will survive strict scrutiny. The government must prove it has a compelling interest to altar constitutional protections, such as national security, saving lives, or an act put into place that would protect constitutional protections in place...but these have to be crucial and not just something preferred, nor can they be overly broad, the least restrictive path would have to be found. What is happening here is that by applying the rules to everyone and exempting even a religious defense is they are under the impression that is the least restrictive when in essence it's not, it's stripping the constitutional rights of one group in favor of another, that restriction is aimed at a specific group regardless if they mandate the groups as a whole, when the court has ruled in favor of interfering to the detriment of religious liberties it has always held to be in matters of a compelling interest, crucial, meaning more harm would come than good by upholding a religious liberty. In order to do so it would seem they would have to wade into the debate exactly how gender identify would be defined, whether scientifically it's something someone is born with or a preferred lifestyle, would it be permissible to just take a wild guess what side the debate is right especially given what's at stake. This is more a preferred action, we'd prefer you allow men to compete in sports against women, we'd prefer a minister be forced to marry same sex couples, we'd prefer, prefer, prefer.