[scarface74]

You can’t believe that. That’s just like saying that laws against “sodomy” weren’t discriminatory and only passed for the welfare of the state when they were clearly passed to criminalize non heterosexual consenting sex between adults.

[lern_too_spel]

Once again, there isn't a law against burkinis. There are pool rules that predate the invention of the burkini and disallow many things, wearing burkinis (though not mentioned specifically in the rules) in the pool among them. Writing a law specifically about allowing burkinis is discriminatory against other religions and beliefs.

[scarface74]

This is not true. The law was specifically geared toward Muslims and targeted against “religious extremism”.

The law was specifically aimed https://apnews.com/article/religion-france-government-and-po...

> The ruling was the first under a controversial law, championed by President Emmanuel Macron, aimed at protecting “republican values” from what his government calls the threat of religious extremism.

[lern_too_spel]

Now you're confusing a law passed in a city with a national law. The law passed in the city was specifically making accommodation for one religion, which is not allowed: “the Grenoble vote was made ‘to satisfy a religious demand’ and ‘harms the neutrality of public services.’”

The law passed in the country was set up to disallow laws that favored one religion, but ever since the revolution cast aside Christianity for enlightenment ideals, no such laws had been attempted. It is true that this law was made to prevent laws that favor Islam, but it puts it on equal footing with all other religions. Members of The Native American Church cannot get laws passed to give themselves exemptions to use mescaline.