Thanks for the reply.
*
I think you missed the point, that it is not enough to espouse a general principle, such as "religious animus".
My example does this, it points out in an  obvious way that there are exceptions to this general principle, as there are to most general principles.
Belittling the example as a "foreign niche cult"  focuses attention on the example, rather than the basic logical problem with the judge's statement.
The judge does not have a sound argument until he argues that the religion of the refugees does not constitute a reasonable exception to the general principle.
*
I appreciate that all religious followers are expected to follow the constitution.  
In the case of refugees from a part of the world in which there is a strain in their religion that is exemplified by ISIS:
i) do you think it is reasonable to ask them if they will submit to the constitution, including forgoing Sharia law?
ii) on what grounds would you believe them if they did?