Polish court's ruling: A sikh vs. airport security checks

[Solmyr]

No, because being a Jew does not harm or hinder anyone else. Being free of someone actively trying to convert you to Judaism is another story.

So you'd just ban Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons?

Can you read?

Again, freedom of religion and freedom of speech cannot be compared. They each have their place in the public sphere but you cannot treat them the same way.

Why not?

Why not what?

[Sheilbh]

Can you read?

They're aggressively evangelical faiths.  Is it okay for restaurants to be able to ban them?

Why not what?

Why can't freedom of speech and religion be compared?

[Razgovory]

Okay, should someone have the "right" to be free of people they don't like at their place of business.  Say be free of Jews in their restaurant?

No, because being a Jew does not harm or hinder anyone else. Being free of someone actively trying to convert you to Judaism is another story.

Do you think that freedom of religion, speech and assembly should be applied equally in the public sphere?

Again, freedom of religion and freedom of speech cannot be compared. They each have their place in the public sphere but you cannot treat them the same way.

Someone proselytizing at the door of your residence isn't harming or hindering you either.  Why should you be free to tell protesters or religious types to get off your premises but not say Jews or Blacks?

[Solmyr]

They're aggressively evangelical faiths.  Is it okay for restaurants to be able to ban them?

It is okay for restaurants to ban their proselytizing, yes.

Why can't freedom of speech and religion be compared?

They cannot be compared in the context of giving them equal rights, because they are different things.

[Solmyr]

Someone proselytizing at the door of your residence isn't harming or hindering you either.  Why should you be free to tell protesters or religious types to get off your premises but not say Jews or Blacks?

They totally are, if you have other plans for using your front yard. And yes, you can tell anyone to get off, including Jews and Blacks. Or do you routinely allow total strangers to walk into your apartment?

[derspiess]

As I understand it, for baptized Sikhs the hair is considered very intimate and private, so asking a devout Sikh to take his turban off is roughly in the same ballpark as asking you to strip down to your underwear.

I know someone who has stripped down to less than that at a ballpark

[grumbler]

But, then, I've never heard of elected airport security inspectors before, either.

Why would they be elected? 

Dunno.  Maybe because Poles are just weird, I guess.  Solmyr argued that

So, while airport security could offer that sikh a private room to take off his turban if conditions permitted, if there were, say, 5000 other people waiting in line and this would significantly slow them down, then a case exists for not offering special accomodations.

When challenged by Raz as to

Why should it be at the state's discretion?

he responded

Because the state government is elected by us, thus we put trust in it to make such decisions.

Now, since "the state government" being trusted to make such decision here is the security guards at the airport, this sounds like they are elected, since the fact that they are elected is the reason why they are being trusted. 

Or not.

[Razgovory]

Someone proselytizing at the door of your residence isn't harming or hindering you either.  Why should you be free to tell protesters or religious types to get off your premises but not say Jews or Blacks?

They totally are, if you have other plans for using your front yard. And yes, you can tell anyone to get off, including Jews and Blacks. Or do you routinely allow total strangers to walk into your apartment?

Okay, lets clear this up.  I'm talking about door-to-door proselytizing.  I have no problem with you telling them leave.  Do you think they have the right to knock on your door and ask you though?  the Blacks and Jews thing, I was thinking more along the lines of a business owner.

[Razgovory]

They cannot be compared in the context of giving them equal rights, because they are different things.

Explain how one right is different then another.

[grumbler]

It is okay for restaurants to ban their proselytizing, yes.

Can a restaurant ban one kind of proselytizing and not another?  Say, allow proselytizing for a sports team or one set religion, but not for a political party or any religion but that one?

This flexible right to free speech thing of yours is interesting.  It appears to ban speech you, specifically, find annoying, while allowing any speech you don't personally find annoying.

[grumbler]

They cannot be compared in the context of giving them equal rights, because they are different things.

Actually, they cannot be compared because they are extremely difficult to distinguish from one another... as your examples show.

[garbon]

Not really. The freedoms of speech and assembly are important parts of the political process and must be exercised in public to be effective. Freedom of religion does not. If people stopped exercising their freedom of religion tomorrow and everybody became faithless, this would not affect the democratic process - if everyone suddenly stopped to exercise their freedom of speech and assembly, this would severely harm the democratic process. So comparing both makes no sense.

What? So personal freedoms that might inconvenience others should only be exercised in public if they can also be used to further the political process (with the actual freedom being a fringe benefit)? Why should everything be subordinate to the government? We should probably ban homosexual acts in public and bring back don't ask, don't tell. Those don't serve any legitimate purpose for the gov and could be very inconvenient for citizens who find such things repulsive.

[Razgovory]

I was going to wait a bit till I trotted out that argument, but go ahead.  It does seem somewhat odd the different way Americans and Europeans view government.

[garbon]

I was going to wait a bit till I trotted out that argument, but go ahead.  It does seem somewhat odd the different way Americans and Europeans view government.

I'm sure he'll have a logically inconsistent argument to rebut it. Besides, I wouldn't judge Europe by the beliefs of Mart and Sol, anymore than I'd judge America based on the beliefs of Habbaku or Dps.

[Sheilbh]

They cannot be compared in the context of giving them equal rights, because they are different things.

Actually, they cannot be compared because they are extremely difficult to distinguish from one another... as your examples show.

Yeah I don't understand this distinction at all.  Marti seems to suggest that because certain rights serve a certain social purpose they should be more difficult to restrict, while others aren't socially useful so we should be more sanguine about restricting them.  It seems a rather dangerous position.

I can't work out Solmyr's basis for his hierarchy of rights, so I can't judge.  But his attitude seems like a secularist version of a right not to be offended.

Surely the best option is to treat all rights equally?  They should only be restricted if they harm others' liberties (and I'd use 'harm' more restrictively than freedom from being hassled) or if there's an overwhelming public need.