In terms of defining a right, there's a principle called the equal regard assessment, and it's the idea that a right is not interfered with if a prohibition treats those who are religious the same as those who aren't. In other words, it's a prohibition that applies equally to everyone, and the equal regard approach is supported by case law, actually, both internationally and here in New Zealand. In the European Court of Human Rights, C v the UK, in 1983, the court found that the right to manifest your religion doesn't give people the right to refuse to comply with legislation that applies neutrally and generally to all members of the public. In New Zealand, the case of R v J, the Court of Appeal found that the right to manifest religious beliefs excluded decision making that endangered the child's right to health or life. In my view, whether you take a definition-balancing or an equal regard approach or a section 5 balancing approach, the legislation is justified. It's consistent in a credible way with case law and it's rights affirming. 