- Reaction score
- 7
- Points
- 230
N. McKay said:If taken to its logical conclusion your argument would allow anyone to do anything, legal or not, on the basis of religion. Want to go to school naked? Just found your own religion and include that in its practices.
I think the line has to be drawn based on how established a religion is. To be considered a religion I suggest that it would have to enjoy widespread practice over a long time by people with an honest belief in its teachings -- otherwise it's just a club, or maybe a cult.
Not really. For any rule to be imposed that might violate some tenet of faith, to prove that you're not being discriminatory, you have to prove that there is a valid reason for the rule (IE Tesco wanting to cut down on shoplifters) and you have to be consistent with how your apply the rule. A "clothing required" rule is perfectly valid, and if the members of the Church of Jesus Christ Without Any Pants don't like it, they can feel free to go pound sand. However, if you decide to allow members of the Roman Nudists Church to go without any clothes, but require members of the Church of Jesus Christ Without Any Pants to wear something, then they would have a case.
And this is why Tesco could have some problems should the Jedi in question decide to sue. Because they have determined that it is acceptable to allow some Muslims to shop in their stores with their faces obscured, but have decided that would be unacceptable for members of the Jedi Church.
In any case, it would still be up to the courts to determine whether a religion is "established" enough, and frankly the last thing they should be doing is deciding what is a religion and what isn't.