Paul, the problem is not discrimination, that is just part of a standard humans make-up. We all discriminate on a daily basis, and it is important that we not interfere with the building blocks of our physique because that's the beginning of the stuff that mental institutions are made for.
Are you suggesting that a valid comparison was made to highlight the flaw in your argument and your best response is to dismiss it as 'religious clap trap'?
The example IS valid and was in response to a comment which ultimately called for reasons why religious institutions should get exemptions from certain laws.
My response was to confirm that they already do, and that the helmet example was only one such exemption.
It IS relevant because it means that GOD's law over-rides common law.
Mate I don't make this stuff up, for crying out loud, just read it and accept it, it won't kill you, or are we now seeing an example of Foxy's softly softly, submission just posted, that I shouldn't say something if it's going to offend you or anyone else?
Well you can all relax in the knowledge that I didn't make it up, it's already out there and has been for as long as.
So, YES, exemption do and have existed for as long as laws have, there you have it, all people have to do is accept it.

ALTRAV, I fail to see the relationship between wearing a helmet for safety reasons, and religious observance. But since that would only result in the non-wearers melon being squashed in an accident, I suppose I will have to live with that. Just as I live with bikies who don't wear a helmet because its not cool, and it also causes them migraines so their medical certificate tells the coppers.

If the religious were content to keep their nonsense beliefs to themselves I would be okay with that. But they choose to come out of their holes and try and convert me to their way of thinking. Its irksome they try that BS from time to time, but I can live with that as well. Not content to stick to themselves, or just be a pain in the arse, these fools then claim that if you don't join in and follow them you will burn in hell for eternity, now that is going too far!

Paul, you've nearly got it.
The basis for the helmet v religion comments is to demonstrate that we are already engaged in the practice of religion overruling common law.
To explain further; the law says you must wear a safety helmet on a bike.
Religion says you must not remove your headwear (Turban) in public, so such a person gets an exemption from wearing a crash helmet, as prescribed by law.
This is just one example, and there are many, where religion has overruled common law.
So the idea that we must not give exemptions to religious groups because of their beliefs or faith, is just another pathetic attempt at the queers getting their own way, just because they say so.
Paul, it's quite funny but I was going to write your last paragraph in it's entirety, back to you, only where you reference, religion I was going to put, queers or poofters instead.
Apart from the last line, it's uncanny, but it actually makes perfect sense as a response to your own comment on that particular passage.

Dear Paul,

Our laws do not allow people to do what they like
if they hurt others. And when we hide discrimination under
the guise of 'religious freedom'
we make a mockery of human rights.

Foxy, daaarling, please, stop, I can't take any more of this bickering.
That's why I say, don't try to hide it, speak your mind and everything will be out in the open for all to see.
No more hiding behind these walls of shame called PC and discrimination and on and on it goes, so boring.
Why do you want to live in a world of fantasy and why can't you see the long term harm all this 'don't hurt or upset someone' crap is doing.
Why do you think the suicide rate, well every rate, is up?
Because people like you have been pandering to these wall flowers so much that when a fly lands on them they go into a coma.
For Christs sake, stop, step back and look at what your doing, you may think you're right, because YOU think you're right, not because you are.
I'm not suggesting I'm right, but I can say categorically, YOU'RE WRONG!

It is not feasible to make legal exemptions for religion because ordinary humans are not able to discern and tell which actions are religious and which are not. The "laws of God" cannot be written in simple and finite formulas, but rather have infinite exceptions and sub-exceptions and sub-sub-exceptions - for each and every situation is different. One could say "just follow the Holy Spirit", but how can one possibly commit the nebulous details to writing?

Therefore, in order to protect the freedom of religion as much as humanly possible, we must limit the restrictions of the law over individuals to the bare minimum, only as absolutely required to prevent others from harm. Legislators might still make mistakes, for example when the "others" in question would not truly or always be harmed by a proscribed act - but at least they should try.

Those who currently want exemptions for other-than-religious reasons will then enjoy the benefit of the doubt.