Whether local landscaping ordinances that restrict native plant growth violate religious freedoms, property rights, and equal protection under the law

1. When a person's religion requires them to be a steward of the earth and protector of all of God's creations (i.e. where possible to preserve it and where it is out of balance to return that balance) can they abstain from adherence to a local ordinance which requires landscaping and plant height restrictions that have been proven to destroy the local ecosystem, indigenous insects, animals and birds; pollute the air and water; deplete aquifers; waste water resources; increase flooding and damage the health of their family and neighbors? 2. Will the U.S. Supreme Court concur with the Canadian Superior Court and other nations that recognize landscaping as a form personal expression, as well as an art form, and is therefore protected free speech 3. When a municipality allows grasses up to 10 feet tall and poisonous weeds on public land, city parks and public buildings while fining some people and not others for having these same plants and tall grasses is this a violation of the rights of equal enforcement? 4. Who decides what constitutes a weed or nuisance plant? If the property owner enjoys indigenous North American species of flowers, grasses and plants purchased at any of the thousands of commercial and retail outlets, can a municipality, based upon the decision of one city employee or complaint of a neighbor, destroy, limit, prohibit or force a person to pay a fine without proving that such landscape does any harm or that there is a compelling government interest? 5. Does mowing, a prohibition and/or height restrictions on plants in a native plant landscape constitute a "taking" of person's property? Does this forced mowing and/or plant height restrictions deprive a person of their right to full use and enjoyment of their property? 6. There is a conflict between the Illinois 4th District Appellate Court which ruled that ordinances using undefined terms such as "weed", "grass", "noxious", are too vague and the failure to define the or impose any standards renders the ordinance an unlawful delegation of legislative authority. The guidelines of the Illinois Municipal Authority also cautioned not to use these vague terms as the courts would over turn the ordinance. However the 5th District Appellate Court ruled that these terms were not subjective and vague. Which is true?