Professor Christopher Lund’s article, Free Exercise Reconceived: The Logic and Limits of Hosanna-Tabor, identifies an eminently sensible settlement over the contentious issue of when and to what extent the government can regulate church employment and participation issues that touch on public laws. The settlement includes a zone of protection for church autonomy, grounded in Free Exercise and Establishment Clause principles, that can be overcome only where churches have asked for or waived their rights to refuse state involvement. This bargain carefully balances the interests of churches, as independent rights-bearing entities, against those of the state. But it is problematic in one very important way. It does not justify forcing individuals—who are purportedly bound by church norms as a function of their membership—to forfeit their ability to assert their legal rights simply because a matter is deemed “religious.” Lund’s particular line of reasoning focuses on protecting religious organizations from the state but fails to provide a persuasive rationale for denying individuals the protection of the law.