Moreover, the reasonableness of the bylaw can also be learned from the fact that it does not prohibit the eating, possession, processing and production of pig products, and that the restriction is limited – the prohibition of sale only.
(d) The Presumption of Propriety of the Bylaw
The bylaw was enacted in accordance with the provisions of the Enabling Law, and therefore the subordinate legislator has fulfilled its obligation. There is, therefore, a presumption, which can be contradicted, that the bylaw is legal (Zamir in his book [23], at pp. 50 ff.). The appellants did not contradict this presumption and we have no choice but to determine that the bylaw was enacted with authority and is administratively proper.
(e) The Bylaw Establishes a Proper Balance
In accordance with the ruling, see, for example, High Court of Justice 4360/94 Tatour v. Minister of Police et al. [9],
at p. 568:
"Freedom of occupation does not confer an absolute right, a right that has nothing behind it. Freedom of occupation, like other freedoms, to compete with interests that are contrary to it or to interests that are incompatible with it, and at the end of the process of weighing and measuring – of qualities and quantities – a proper balance will be determined, and we will know whose hand has the upper hand, to what extent and under what conditions."
For all these reasons, I would suggest to my esteemed colleagues to dismiss the appeal.
President A. Laron
Disputes regarding matters of religion and belief, by their very nature, as Justice Or said in the first judgment High Court of Justice 3872/93 Mitral in a Tax Appeal v. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Religious Affairs et al. (hereinafter – the Mitral Company case [10]), at p. 497, "are difficult, the subject is charged. Means of persuasion will not always be helpful in settling disputes on matters of religion and belief that are also related to the question of freedom of conscience." And so it is in the present case.