Most people would say that someone has the right to be a vegetarian, since it’s a personal choice. But most people would also say that their choice doesn’t give them the right to enter a hot dog eating contest and demand that the rules be changed to accommodate them.

That’s an extreme case, but there are other cases that aren’t so clear-cut. When can an organization be expected to accommodate individual beliefs and practices, and when does the individual have to either comply or go home? What would you say in the following situations?

1. The Muslim weightlifter

Kulsoom Abdullah dresses for competitions the same way she always dresses in public – with her entire body covered, except for her face and hands. But she won’t be able to do that if she wants to participate in competitions governed by the International Weightlifting Federation.

The rules say that the elbows and knees must not be covered, so that judges can verify that the joints are locked and that the competitor is not wearing anything that gives them an advantage. But Abdullah was happy to hear that the IWF is willing to discuss the issue at their next meeting, and possibly allow some kind of exemption.

On the one hand, it’s probably possible to figure out a way to cover her elbows and knees while also allowing the judges to do their job. On the other hand, why should the burden be on the IWF and the judges?

What if the competition was during Ramadan (when Muslims fast between sunrise and sunset), so she wanted to compete at 5 AM instead of the scheduled time of 5 PM? What if someone’s religion requires them to wear thick clothing that makes it impossible to verify that their joints are locked? What if someone’s religion forbids them from touching metal?

2. The Marine at airport security

In the movie Taking Chance, Kevin Bacon plays a Marine Corps officer. As he approaches airport security in his service uniform, the TSA agent asks him to remove his medal-clad coat so it can go through the x-ray. Kevin refuses and asks to be taken to a private room and wanded down.

The TSA agent is annoyed and asks not to be told how to do his job. As the growing line becomes increasingly impatient, the agent again asks that the coat be removed. Kevin says he will not desecrate his uniform by running it through the x-ray, and demands to be wanded down in a private room. The agent allows this, but he isn’t happy about it.

This situation is similar to the previous one. He’s perfectly capable of removing his jacket and making it easy for everyone, but doing so conflicts with his beliefs. The biggest difference is that airports are already set up to allow private screenings – it’s not like the TSA has to debate whether they should allow this.

But suppose that for whatever reason, granting this request was difficult (maybe the person who usually does these things wasn’t on duty at the time). Does Kevin have a reasonable right to refuse to take off his coat, or does he give up that right by choosing to fly?

While we’re at it, what if he believed that planes should just drive on the roads instead of flying? What if he wanted to salute with his left hand?

3. The handicapped golfer

Casey Martin has a birth defect known as Klippel Trenaunay Weber syndrome, which requires him to constantly wear two rubber compression stockings and makes it painful and dangerous to walk long distances. He wanted to use a golf cart in the PGA Tour, but the rules say that everyone walks, as the fatigue from walking is part of the game.

His lawyers submitted videos showing the severity of Martin’s condition, in which his leg turned gray as the blood tried to push its way up. They argued that walking would risk fracturing his leg, which would lead to amputation, and that using a cart would not give him an advantage over his competitors who had to walk.

Martin’s request to use a cart under the Americans with Disabilities Act was initially denied by the PGA Tour in 1997. In 2001 the case went to the Supreme Court, who ruled 7-2 in favor of Martin.

Since this situation involves a disability rather than a personal choice, it might be easy to say that of course he can have a cart. But does that give him an unfair advantage over people who have to walk several miles in the hot sun?

If we’re going to say that walking isn’t part of the game, then anyone should be able to use a cart. If we’re going to say that giving him a slight advantage is an acceptable compromise to allow someone with a disability to play, then what constitutes a disability?

What about a sprained ankle? What about narcolepsy? What if someone who can’t swim for medical reasons wants to enter a triathlon?

I was driving home from work on Friday when I got the text:

cnn.com
pokerstars execs indicted
domains seized by fbi


I didn’t believe it at first. But I checked the news and sure enough, the day that online poker players had always feared was finally upon us. The government had shut down the three biggest online poker sites, effectively ending online poker in the U.S.

While online poker is perfectly legal in most countries, it has been a gray area in the U.S. since 2006, when the SAFE Port Act was passed. It was mainly about port security, but an online gambling measure was added at the last minute. It essentially said, “Well, we don’t know if online poker is legal, but if it’s not, then it’s illegal for banks to process transactions for poker sites.”

Some poker sites stopped accepting U.S. customers altogether. Others were willing to let them play, but the problem was how to get money into their accounts. Since most payment processors didn’t want to get involved in this legal gray area, the poker sites had to find people who would. And they figured that as long as they were forced to do something a little bit illegal, they might as well do something a lot illegal.

That amounted to bank fraud and money laundering. The funny thing is that that’s really all this is about. No federal court has ever ruled that online poker is illegal.

I can’t really defend money laundering, but the government could just fine the individuals responsible instead of shutting down the whole industry. Really, the same government that couldn’t be bothered to prosecute the perpetrators of the financial meltdown has decided that they’re not going to let people play cards?

Looking at the tables on PokerStars, I see players from Russia, Chile, Argentina, Taiwan, Canada, China, Australia, Portugal, Spain, Poland, Israel, United Kingdom, Germany, Greece, New Zealand, Mexico, Ukraine, Costa Rica, Colombia, Brazil, Serbia, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Estonia, Denmark, South Korea, Norway, Honduras, Paraguay…basically the whole world, except the United States.

Why don’t we have the same rights as people in these countries? What happened to the land of the free? Regardless of whether you happen to like poker, this is not a good precedent. Millions of people have lost a beloved hobby, and some people have lost their dream job.

What’s the point of trampling on this harmless pastime? The government couldn’t stop alcohol, and they can’t stop poker either. They’re just going to push it underground, missing the opportunity to regulate and tax it.

I’m going to go to work tomorrow (if software development is still legal), punch my time card and make a living without poker. Yes, I’ll survive, but the roses will smell a little less sweet, knowing I’ve lost this shot at the American Dream.

Jonathan Mead, one of the faculty members of Project Mojave, has just released a manifesto called The Liberation Revolution.

It’s about creating a “freedom business” in order to “cut the cubicle umbilical cord.” While most of the information on how to do this is reserved for the paying members of Project Mojave, the manifesto is free and a pleasure to read.

Here’s what’s inside (I hope he doesn’t mind me ripping off his bullet points!):

• Why we’re tired of choking back vomit because we’re going another day doing a job we hate, with people we don’t connect with, working for someone we don�t respect.
• How we’re transforming our relationship with work, through breaking down social conventions and overly politicized nonsense.
• Why we think entrepreneurship is one of the highest forms of self-actualization.
• How we’re in this together.
• How to cultivate the “Free-man” (or free-woman) mindset and seven things you can do right now.
• The importance of getting to Game Over.

Being free, it’s not as earth-shattering as his paid ebook Reclaim Your Dreams. But it’s good, and well worth taking a few minutes to read. I’m a sucker for freedom manifestos.