...
III. Coming-A force that often seeks to talk about interference in individual freedom. Certainly, there is an infringement of individual freedom here, but it has been allowed to-It is up to the Enabling Law and it is not for us to express an opinion as to whether or not the Knesset did well to enact this law. However, there is no A Matter of Religious Discrimination. It should also be noted that there is no prohibition and no authority to prohibit the eating of pork. This is an interference with the individual's freedom to engage On sale A certain commodity, there is an intervention here at the convenience of the individual who eats pork, when he cannot obtain it in a nearby place to him, in his city of residence. In this respect, there is no difference between a Jew who eats pork, a Muslim who eats pork, and a Christian who eats pork."
In summary, the difference between the ruling ruled in the case of the High Court of Justice Friday [2] and the ruling in the case of the High Court of Justice of Manshi [1] lies in the fact that the judgment in the Menashi case was given after the Authorization Law, which authorized municipalities to enact bylaws such as the law in question.
(d) In light of the High Court of Justice Manashi [1] The judge's task in the matter before us was easy and clear, to dismiss the appeal – since the rule in the Menashi case is clear and sharp-Meaningfully. However, we must examine whether the halakha has changed in light of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation.
The Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation states, in section 4, that:
"Freedom of occupation is not violated except by a law that is appropriate to the values of the State of Israel, which is intended for a proper purpose, and to an extent that does not exceed what is required, or according to such a law by virtue of its explicit authorization."
In the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty the same clause, I mean section 8, which reads as follows: