But you're missing my point. Here was the end of my post:
"The only time headgear should be outlawed is when the safety or rights of others are compromised by the person wearing the headgear.
Keep the religious question out of it. The state has no right determining the legitimacy of religious expression."
No, I got your point and responded to it. I just went off on a bit of a rant afterward.
I'll add this - the only time headgear should be MANDATED is when the safety or rights of others are compromised by a person not wearing the headgear. (This would include on construction sites, or other places where headgear is protective, because of the risk to others if one is injured).
It would also include motorcycle riders on the highway, for reasons that I've already gone into. An injury or fatality collision creates more risk for other users of the roadway than a property damage only collision would, and the decision to wear a helmet has a significant effect on the likely severity of a collision.
This is another debate, so let's please not get sidetracked. My point is that when the state steps in and tries to mandate just what is religious headgear and who can and can't wear religious garb - that's a really slippery slope. I believe the state should stay completely out of that question.
So do I... by not granting religious exemptions.
Of course, the flipside to this is that the prohibitions and requirements of our laws should be well thought out and justified. Once we're sure that what the law says is reasonable, then granting exemptions to it becomes unreasonable.
Just a thought, though: I can leave some wiggle-room open for religions in one way. IMO, the important thing is the overall purpose of the rule or law. If someone can come up with an alternate way of acheiving the same ends, that's fine by me.
For instance, the point of hard hat rules is to protect workers from head injuries. I don't really care whether it's done with a standard hard hat, plywood hoarding, a futuristic force field, or something else. If someone can create a way to acheive the objective while still maintaining their religious obligation, that's fine by me.
I mean, if some enterprising Sikh came up with an impact-absorbing version of an EZ-Up tent and got it certified by CSA, UL or whoever as an impact protection device, I'd have no problem with him (or anyone else) working under one of those on a construction site without a hard hat.
