If there are such Sikhs, I haven't met them. As I touched on earlier, the "5 Ks", or the obligations of a baptized Sikh, include long hair, not wearing a turban:
BBC - Religions - Sikhism: The Five Ks
I think what's actually important here is that asking an observant Sikh to remove his turban demonstrates cultural insensitivity and is an affront to his dignity.
Interestingly, though, our hypothetical Sikh friend has another religious obligation that the courtroom staff would probably care quite a bit about: the kirpan. Baptized Sikh men are obliged to carry a dagger or sword.
Is religious obligation enough reason to allow someone to bring a weapon into a courtroom?
Yes, I read it.
I interpret it differently: I don't think this is just a matter of protecting First Amendment rights; I think it sets up a situation where religious concerns will be the overriding factor on decisions that affect a wide spectrum of concerns.
In particular, I worry that this will give a "get out of jail free card" to churches and religious individuals on all sorts of issues. Will it be considered a "substantial burden on the exercise of religion" to require a church to get a retrofit to allow access for persons with disabilities? Could someone argue that a county should widen Road A instead of Road B because the congestion on Road A (his route to church) amounts to a "substantial burden" on his exercise of religion?
I think that religious issues are just one of many concerns, and it's government's job to try to strike the most appropriate balance between all of them. AFAICT, this law effectively says "screw that balance in favour of religions, as long as the effects on everything else aren't completely unacceptable."
Of course. It's offensive and unnecessary on several levels. I just think that any religious concerns are minor compared to the more important factors.
See... this is part of why I disagree with religious exemptions to the law, because they inevitably end up with the government judging what is and isn't "legitimate" religious expression.
There was a case here in Ontario a few years ago. In one of our government-run Catholic schools (which are a whole kettle of fish that I probably shouldn't get into because it'll just get me riled), a lesbian student at one of these Catholic schools wanted to bring her girlfriend to the prom. The school refused, and she brought a case to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, where the school board argued that it would violate Catholic doctrine to allow a student to bring their same-sex boyfriend/girlfriend to an official school function. However, the Tribunal decided that Catholic doctrine doesn't actually prohibit a lesbian student bringing her girlfriend to the prom, and ordered the school to let the girlfriend come.
Do I want the courts (and quasi-judicial bodies like human rights tribunals) ruling on the legitimacy of other people's religions? Not at all... but when the law allows for special treatment on the basis of religion, it's inevitable.
Of course. But when those rights are in conflict, it's impossible not to choose a side.
Huge parts of our lives, communities, and societies are in the hands of private businesses. Telling those private businesses that they're free to discriminate as they see fit is effectively the same as telling the people being discriminated against that they don't have a right to a community or a society.
I think that often, maximizing liberty is a matter of putting restrictions in place that limit the freedom of people to limit the freedom of others.
