From: nospam@blanchflower.me.uk 
  
 On 04/08/2025 12:10, Max Demian wrote: 
 > On 04/08/2025 10:24, Jon Ribbens wrote: 
 >> On 2025-08-04, Jeff Gaines  wrote: 
 >>> On 03/08/2025 in message <5996360858.0795274f@uninhabited.net> Roger 
 >>> Hayter wrote: 
 >>> 
 >>>>> Yes, why should any one religion have precedence? It would refer to 
 >>>>> "religion" (to be defined) rather than each specific religion. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> I'm rather confused; what law are you referring to that protects one 
 >>>> religion 
 >>>> more than another? Are you sure they just haven't been any attempts to 
 >>>> persecute or whip up hatred agains members of most religions? Are 
 >>>> you sure 
 >>>> that a serious threat to persecute or kill methodists would not be 
 >>>> severely 
 >>>> punished in the unlikely event that it happened? 
 >>> 
 >>> I have pruned this, it's getting a bit long. 
 >>> 
 >>> The various laws relating to antisemitism protect the Jewish faith, I am 
 >>> not aware of anything similar for other faiths. 
 >> 
 >> They don't exist for other faiths because they don't exist for Judaism 
 >> either. 
 >> 
 >> (The only specific Jewish exemption I can think of is the Marriage Act 
 >> one that says marriages "according to the usages of the Jews" are valid. 
 >> It also explicitly allows marriages "according to the usages of the 
 >> Society of Friends (commonly called Quakers)", which is an amusing 
 >> historical artefact.) 
 > 
 > How would that work for Quakers, who can marry themselves with no-one 
 > officiating? How would their marriages be recorded? 
 Each Area Meeting appoints a Quaker marriage registrar, who is 
 responsible for ensuring that the marriage complies with both Quaker and 
 civil requirements and to handle the necessary paperwork for both. 
 -- 
 Best wishes, Serena 
 Expect nothing.  Live frugally on surprise  (Alice Walker) 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)