be inconvenienced by the law
If you're pagan and holding an early morning ritual and need wine/liquor/etc, you're inconvenienced.
If you're cooking and need wine/liquor/etc, you're inconvenienced.
If you're traveling and need to show up with a bottle of whiskey (house warming, for example), you're inconvenienced.
In any of these cases, you could have dropped what you had already purchased. Or it was stolen. Or the neighbor's teenage kid drank it. Or you bought the wrong kind. It's doesn't matter.
It's not a matter of being inconvenienced anyway - that's not how any of that works. It's a hardship. It's an embarrassment. It's an requirement. You literally have no other choices. You can't go to another store because it's regulated at the state level. It's a shame because adults are adults, period, and they don't need the state to tell them what they cannot do at a specific time "because church."
You've misunderstood me. I'm saying nobody gives a shit to undo it. Regardless of how the laws came into being, not enough people are convinced that it's worth the effort to reverse the policies. They can be worked around well enough that it's not really worth the trouble.
They can be worked around well enough that it's not really worth the trouble.
That's not the point. In at least one scenario I outlined, the state government is causing adherents to a religion undue hardship and is grounds enough right there to repeal the law.
not enough people are convinced that it's worth the effort to reverse the policies.
No, if you actually read what I linked you, you'll see that you're wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law#Court_cases
Very very simply put, the court could not be moved enough to see that it caused undue hardship on anyone for any valid reason. It's not that enough people care because it's made it to several supreme courts. In 1961, a SCOTUS case made a decision. But, according to your reasoning here, the values in 1961 hold true today. We already see that that's not the case.
It's not about who's right or wrong here. It's about why they're right or wrong. Revisiting "why" today would render a completely different outcome.
The people in question would first have to disagree or be inconvenienced by the law. Even still, you have the rest of the week to buy it anyway, it's never more than an inconvenience at worst because it's not a necessity.