Belly,

"I differ with you on religion, it should be free to practice but no faith ever, should be involved in any government"

Not even in the government of the Vatican?

What about Mount Athos?

"Although Mount Athos is legally part of the European Union like the rest of Greece, the Monastic State of the Holy Mountain and the Athonite institutions have a special jurisdiction which was reaffirmed during the admission of Greece to the European Community (precursor to the EU). This empowers the Monastic State's authorities to regulate the free movement of people and goods in its territory; in particular, only males are allowed to enter."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Athos

Ise Mise be careful what you wish for
Do you think Islam should have a hold on so many governments?
To the extent it runs some totally
Should they control every single aspect of life in those countries
At the start [we could have just continued posting in the existing thread] I spoke about caution needed and reminded the rights would be for every faith
My rights not to believe need protecting too
And I firmly, demand, no faith ever again controls or plays any formal role, in how we are governed
We must take in to consideration many, from all faiths, do not practice that faith and in increasing numbers no longer believe
As is their right

Yesterday one of the heads of Islam in this country, as expected, called for protection for his faith too
That faiths followers number about 3 percent of us, but yes should be protected
HOW do we avoid true problems
the Jewish faith is likely to number twice the Islamic one,they too want protection
This matter must be handled with great care
It also must never be used to ignore our laws

I think that the opponents of FoR are guilty of going to extremes. The rational man approach needs to be taken.

For example, a religious man that regularly attends church that refuses to make a cake with pro gay sex slogans on it is not trying to be offensive rather the reverse.

However, a notionally religious man with no record of religious devotions cannot claim religion for doing something offensive.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Thank you for this creative suggestion:

It is a good start, a good attempt, but how can we expect government and law-enforcement agencies to distinguish between the truly-religious and the notionally-religious?

To be able to do this, you need someone like a prophet with a divine sight into other people's hearts, but I don't believe that any prophets are currently employed, or available to be employed in the public service...

To ensure that no truly-religious person is prosecuted for refusing to bake a cake, the only available solution in our age is to give people the benefit of the doubt and allow everyone to freely choose their customers in their own private business. Choosing to refuse customers on the basis of race/gender/sexuality/etc, would anyway prove to be a very miserable and costly business strategy.

Y,

It is not original, it is the position the US supreme court took.