RFRA claims under the Eagle Act provide a paradigmatic example of the zero-sum game. The Eagle Act prohibits, among other things, the taking, possession, and sale of eagles and eagle parts, except as permitted by the Secretary of the Interior.
[T]he burden on religion is inescapable; the only question is whom to burden and how much." (71) In other words, it's a zero-sum game. Antoine did not seek to alleviate the overall burden on religion; rather, he sought to shift his religious burden to someone else.
Granting the religious exemption from the Controlled Substances Act in O Centro, the court reasoned, "did not have any effect on other people's religion." (75) It did not present a zero-sum game. In Eagle Act cases, in contrast, alleviating the defendants' burden would merely shift that burden to tribal members.
Like O Centro, Hobby Lobby did not concern a zero-sum game. RFRA claims in the Eagle Act context, however, necessarily set up a zero-sum game, because alleviating one person's religious burden shifts an equal religious burden to someone else.
The Eagle Act provides a stark example of a zero-sum game, because what is shifted from the claimant to the third party is the religious burden itself.
In the anti-discrimination context, for example, religious exemptions can present a clear zero-sum game in situations where either the religious employer has to hire the covered individual or it's exempted from that requirement, and someone else gets the job.
Thus, like Hobby Lobby, the majority did not see Wheaton College as presenting a zero-sum game.