Protection of religious views and behaviours

[crazy canuck]

What evidence would you easily find, CC?

The fact that he is often proclaims himself to be an atheist.  The fact that the only religion he has believed in has no religious requirement that he wear a hat. 
You and Marti seem to think that a court will simply take the word of the person claiming the religious belief in the absence of any supporting evidence.  That isn't how it works.

Sorry I didn't mean this case specifically. And ah, does this protection only get afforded to organized religions?

no

[crazy canuck]

It is interesting that, in the actual case where this went to court (which was in Austria, not Canada), the court sided with the Pastafarian:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14135523

Insofar as I know, the BC case has never seen the inside of a court.  If someone has facts that say differently, I'd appreciate a link.  OTOH, some officials in the US and the Czech Republic decided not to contest the wearing of pasta strainers since doing so would force them to take unconstitutional stands on the relative merit of different religious beliefs.

If my understanding is correct and this hasn't seen a court ruling yet, I'll be curious to see if the predictions of our three Canadian lawyers (all of whom appear to predict hat the Canadian courts will rule against the Pastafarian, though may they disagree on exactly why) are accurate.

*pops popcorn*

I think the one thing that Malthus and I agree on is that Canadian law is superior. 

No big surprise there.

[Barrister]

You may score your points whoever you so which my dear grumbler. 

I for one am here to discuss and exchange viewpoints, not score points.

  Not very good with the ol' English comprehension, are you?  The word "point" doesn't always refer to a score.  See:  dictionary.

In any case, what is important is that you have conceded.  That you are so graceless about it isn't at all significant - I'd expect nothing better..

I'm just grateful I can meet your expectations grumbler.

[Malthus]

It is interesting that, in the actual case where this went to court (which was in Austria, not Canada), the court sided with the Pastafarian:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14135523

And even there, it never went to court. At least, according to your link.   

[grumbler]

It is interesting that, in the actual case where this went to court (which was in Austria, not Canada), the court sided with the Pastafarian:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14135523

And even there, it never went to court. At least, according to your link.   

Correction noted.  It was indeed an administrative, not legal, procedure.  So we don't even have the one case yet.  It will be interesting to see how this sort of thing goes in a court.

[Barrister]

Since we talked about him, here's a story about the BC pastafarian.

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-pastafarian-officially-loses-driver-s-licence-over-holy-colander-1.2041499

[Jacob]

Since we talked about him, here's a story about the BC pastafarian.

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-pastafarian-officially-loses-driver-s-licence-over-holy-colander-1.2041499

I'm surprised you (of all people) linked to that article, given the amount of puns and strained metaphors it contains.

[crazy canuck]

The issue of religious freedom is hard to noodle through.

[dps]

Or to put my position in clear terms - imagine you have four people employed at a company, A, B, C and D.

A is a member of a minority religion. Every year he wants to have a day off to commemorate the feast of the birth of prophet of that religion. This is how he finds solace and a sense of community and this is what "recharges" his batteries, psychologically.

B is non-religious but she lost her grandmother, whom she loved very much, few years ago. Ever year she wants to have a day off, on the date of her grandmother's death, to go to her grandmother's grave, and spend the day in quiet contemplation. This is how she finds solace and a sense of communion with her ancestors and her family and this is what "recharges" her batteries, psychologically.

C is a gay man. Every year he wants to have a day off on the anniversary of Stonewall riots, to go to a gay pride parade and spend the day in celebration of his sexuality. This is how he finds solace and a sense of community and this is what "recharges" his batteries, psychologically.

D is a nerd. Every year he wants to have a day off to go to a gaming convention and spend the day geeking out with other nerds. This is how he finds solace and a sense of community and this is what "recharges" his batteries, psychologically.

I am all for reasonable accommodation, but I see no reason why person A should be accommodated more than persons B, C and D. Their needs are different but they are, to me, on the same level - and the government has no business telling people that one is more worthy than another. Of course, this is more difficult, and a system should be put in place so this is not abused, but that is the role of the lawmakers.

It might interest you to know, that under American law, private employers would be under no legal obligation to give any of those employees their desired days off.  Generally speaking, our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion protects us against government action, not action by private individuals or companies.  In fact, a few years back, a state law (in Missouri?) requiring employers to allow employees days off on days their religious views designated as days on which one should not work was struck down on the grounds that it violated the establishment of religion clause, even though the law didn't favor any religion over another.

[Ed Anger]

I'd might give C the day off for Stonewall Jackson's birthday.

[Martinus]

It might interest you to know, that under American law, private employers would be under no legal obligation to give any of those employees their desired days off.  Generally speaking, our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion protects us against government action, not action by private individuals or companies.  In fact, a few years back, a state law (in Missouri?) requiring employers to allow employees days off on days their religious views designated as days on which one should not work was struck down on the grounds that it violated the establishment of religion clause, even though the law didn't favor any religion over another.

Which is fine to me as well - I have already established that Canadians are the real enemy here.

[Martinus]

I'd might give C the day off for Stonewall Jackson's birthday.

[sbr]

And hey sbr, how is it going?

Meh, not bad thanks.

[Eddie Teach]

Since we talked about him, here's a story about the BC pastafarian.

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-pastafarian-officially-loses-driver-s-licence-over-holy-colander-1.2041499

What a goof.

[Martinus]

We had a similar story in Poland (although here the government refused to register pastafarianism as a religion - religious organisations can apply to receive special tax breaks and similar benefits from the government). I stood squarely on the side of pastafarians.