Fredrika Shavit v. Rishon Lezion Jewish Burial Society

this will be said and will be fulfilled, provided that order and
public peace is preserved. See e.g. the Meatrael case at 507-09.
Our concern is with these two sets of pairs: individuals and the
collective, the private domain and the public domain. Both these
pairs relate to each other in certain ways. We can be sure of the
following, subject to statute and constitution: neither an
individual nor the collective can impose on another in the latter's
private domain. Similarly, in the public domain, an individual
will not be allowed to impose his or her will on another or on the
collective. Our case raises a question with regard to the
connection between the individual and the collective in the public
domain. Is the public entitled to force its religious customs on the
individual who finds himself or herself in the public domain, in
its midst, and thus negate that individual’s right to freedom in the
public domain? The Court touched on this issue in Meatrael [6]
[as cited above – trans.].
…
All this is to say that the collective bears a heavy burden
whenever it seeks to deny the freedom of an individual situated in
the public domain; to force practices that are religious in nature
on that individual.
The private domain is distinct from the public domain. What is
the private domain and what is the public domain with respect to
freedom of religion and freedom from religion? All agree that a
person’s home forms part of the private domain. Nevertheless, I
believe that it is possible – and indeed proper – to expand that
which is considered the private domain even beyond the four
walls of one’s house and yard – though with great care. Take, for
example, an observant neighborhood of alleys and narrow side
streets upon which no stranger ever treads. It would not be an
exaggeration to say that, regarding the public desecration of the