Alejandro, religion is someones choice right?
And you are basically saying it is discrimination to not allow a muslim (for example) to exercise their religious practice of not touching a woman in the dojo.
How would you feel if I came to class and choose not to train with muslims? I'm not religious but the mantra of muslims=bad was ingrained in me growing up the same way religion ingrains rules into it's members.
Would you accept and accommodate me not training with Muslims(or Jews, Asians, Spanish)?
Or you do think there is a marked difference between someones personal choice (say being a bigot or racist) and religion?
Do you feel the "rules" of religion more important than someones personal choice just because it's from a recognized religion?
I'm done debating the merits of whether a person who cannot train with the opposite sex should be accomodated or not. However, I would like to comment on your statement since it's been brought up a few times in this thread by others as well.
The question is whether religious beliefs/practices should be treated differently than other strongly held convictions.
The American legal system has largely answered that question in the affirmative - giving more weight to religiously-based practice than to other convictions. Hence, the myriad of religious accomodation laws found at the state and federal level. I believe the primary reason for this is to protect religious minorities from undue discrimination and hardship.
Do they have similar statutes in Canada?