> I am perfectly fine with religion providing exemptions, what concerns me is that privacy seems to have been effectively dismissed here, in favour of a religio

> I am perfectly fine with religion providing exemptions, what concerns me is that privacy seems to have been effectively dismissed here, in favour of a religious exemption argument. No, I understood you perfectly. What you seem to think is that privacy should have played a more important role, despite their being nothing in our countries history to suggest otherwise. > privacy seems to have been effectively dismissed here No, it hasn't. This is wrong from every angle. First, it has not been dismissed here. It's apart of the case. Second, it's not even the strongest point to stand on. Our constitution does not protected against privacy, but religion. Thirdly, this is not special to this case. It did not start here. It started with the foundation of our country. You then proceed to make some arguments that basically say you can start your own religion if this matters to you, you might already be religious (and I assume where your religion does not believe in protecting your privacy), and that someone might lie about being a Christian to afford them the same rights (ignoring the part about creating or establishing your own religion). > The majority decision for Gillette v. United States 401 U.S. 437 (1971) is not one that I particularly like, however its broadening of eligibility beyond strictly religious beliefs is quite good, and I think very relevant. Religion is merely a coded set of beliefs. That you would be okay with this ruling but against religion being used is... well, hypocritical. They are tantamount to the same thing. In either case, belief is being held above privacy. Heck, even this ruling understands this similarity. Regardless, your point basically amounts to: I don't like that the girl used religion first and privacy second while ignoring law and the girl involved. And yet, with all you say, you completely ignore the fact that privacy still would not be the first issue. In the end, I think you are just hiding your real stance: you are against religion regardless of what it does. Your "being disappointed about a belief structure being above privacy in this case" is a lie.