Warp wrote:
>   How about seeing it from the point of view of prohibiting something that
> *everybody* is forbidden from doing? For example, most European cities have
> strict regulations about what types of buildings can be constructed and where,
> sometimes even for purely aesthetical reasons. You just can't go and build
> whatever you want wherever you want. For example there are many towns here
> where it's forbidden to construct buildings which are higher than a certain
> amount of stories, and have all kinds of other aesthetical regulations (such
> as the type of roof they can use).

That's considerably different wording, saying 'everyone is forbidden 
from constructing any building that doesn't follow X design' instead of 
'you aren't allowed to build Y structure that happens to be important to 
you'.

>   A minority coming and demanding that "we should be able to break the
> construction regulations, accepted by the majority, because of our religion"
> is obnoxious.

When a specific construction regulation is put in place to harass a 
specific minority, even if it's by majority decision, that's not ok.

And declaring it country-wide?  That's far worse.  That's de facto 
saying "WE DON'T WANT YOUR KIND HERE", not "we'd be able to just all get 
along if nobody wanted to do things /different/".

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message