It’s easy - if the government doesn’t like the deal being offered by the facility’s owners - for whatever reason - don’t take it. Go somewhere else.
But as we’ve seen on this thread, some folks are not objecting to the restriction per se, but rather because it’s religiously-motivated. That’s religious bigotry.
The focus of the election authorities should be on the circumstances of the offer, not what motivates the offer. The focus should be on actual restrictions that are part of the offer, not on what motivates them.
If, as in the case of my polling place, which is a firehouse, folks may not eat or drink, and that’s acceptable, then it’s acceptable. If we move down the road to the LDS facility, and they allow food and beverages generally, but not caffeinated or alcoholic beverages, then that should be even MORE acceptable, since it's less restrictive. Even though the motivation is religious. The offer should be evaluated on the face of it, not in light of the fact that the motivation for the restriction is religious.
sitetest
Careful, you are making sense here.
The restriction in this case IS religiously motivated. The polling place should be moved or the restriction lifted. It’s a simple as that.
You cannot place religious restrictions upon voters or poll workers. This type of restriction could very well be extended to type of attire, speech, actions or any other criteria. If the Church cannot abide by the actions of the public, then it should not offer its building to be used. If they are offering it as a public service, then they should respect the public.....otherwise don’t offer.
++
Our’s is in a school, we even need to be quite during school hours.
They don’t allow the workers to eat or drink for 12, 14, 16 hour shifts???? Are you serious?