Not only is the idea that they can sue their neighbors to force the neighbors to follow the couple's religion - and just one version of that religion, but there have been so many stories about the tricks that people pull to follow the rule of the laws of sabbath without having to actual make any sacrifices.

I'd suspect there's more to the story. I mean, if there's no 'making of fire', where do they go on those days that doesn't have lights on? My understanding of this restriction was that they themselves couldn't do it. If they have a third party, like a door that moves and activates the light, it isn't really them.

However, if they have in writing an agreement that automatic lights would never be installed, they have grounds for breach of contract, which would make more sense to me than crying discrimination. Probably they're going this way because of British law making civil cases guilty until proven innocent?

Agree with many of the commenters there--be interesting to see what happens if someone falls and is injured because of the darkened hallways.

They could always move. According to the article, it is their "holiday flat".

I think the sticking point is that them walking past it makes it activate, so in effect their actions are turning the light on....

I agree, this is religion over safety... Maybe the hallway could have something installed where it stays on during the Sabbath? Nearly every apartment or condo building leaves the communal area lights on 24/7, this would be a good compromise.

So throw something down the hallway. :D

They were willing to pay to have an override switch installed. Their request doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.

In Israel the elevators run "automatically" on the Sabbath, stopping at every floor so no-one needs to push the buttons. I would think an automatic light would fall under the same category.

So Mr. and Mrs. 'By the book'...

How exactly does 'Love thy Neighbor' fit in with a lawsuit against 35 of yours?

Erm, Love thy neighbour is a Christian thing ?

Even so, religious laws have no legal ground. And since the light is not at all controlled by a person and not even by the jewish couple themselves , this case is just full of poo.

What? Why would someone ask for that if the lights are on 24/7 already.

And like 2many said, many Jewish people have "tricks" they use on the Sabbath to get around the rules.

It's not the same since the light is activated by the individuals motion, whereas the elevator is always moving


First, "Love thy neighbor" is both Christian and Jewish since it is in the old Testament (sorry DoggySpew)

Besides, they aren't suing for millions of dollars - they are suing so that they can use their own money to pay for a switch that they can use to shut off a sensor for one day. It's not a safety issue, as they probably would pay the extra electricity costs for keeping the light on for those twenty four hours. The article mentions that the suit would be dropped immediately if they worked with them instead of ignoring their request.

Point taken. I stand corrected (but never on the Sabbath).

No. Other way round.

Just tell them no. Can they really get in trouble with their sky fairy if they have no choice in the matter?
It is really doing anyone any good if the building's choices are: waste loads of electricity on lighting areas where there aren't any people 98% of the time, or leave those areas dark enough that people can get hurt trying to navigate through them?

No one is going to have real human rights until we get rid of people's ability to regulate other people's behavior because of religion.