>>>>>http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/03/24/quebec-reasonable-accommodation-law.html
>>>>
>>>>And what is your position on that topic?
>>>
>>>I have a VERY hard time with this. Unless I misunderstood, to me, this is the opposite of religious freedom and neutrality but in fact, enforcing no religious practices and views. It is anti-religion to me which is just as bad as enforcing religion.
>>
>>I've got to say I'm with you on this. I understand the impulse that makes people want to have these kinds of policies, but requiring people to eat pork would also have a result as to who would feel comfortable living someplace based on religious belief and it would be pretty hard to advocate that. I completely support making practices like clitorectomy anathema and illegal, but that is because it involves imposing on another person, but wearing a headscarf - or a veil - should not be any of the government's business.
>>
>>And we would do well to remember a government that can forbid a veil can forbid a yarmulke or a crucifix ... or an "Obama" or "McCain" button.
>>
>>And a society that will go after Ann Coulter with torches and pitchforks will but mobilizing those mobs to prevent someone else from speaking next year.
>
>its the french again..

they "don't care what they *do*, actually, as long as they *pronounce* it properly" <s>

I think it is just the idea that government has a right to regulate personal behavior where it does not impinge on the rights of another.