TeaDidikai
Aesi
Besides which, things that give off smoke aren't allowed in my building. I can't even have a floating candle in my bathtub.
Hmmmm... that may actually infringe on your civil liberties. You do live in the US yes?
Seems as if Employment Division v. Smith (1990) doesn't agree, unfortunately - I'll quote the majority opinion as written by Justice Scalia:
Quote:
Respondents in the present case, however, seek to carry the meaning of "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" one large step further. They contend that their religious motivation for using peyote places them beyond the reach of a criminal law that is not specifically directed at their religious practice, and that is concededly constitutional as applied to those who use the drug for other reasons. They assert, in other words, that "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" includes requiring any individual to observe a generally applicable law that requires (or forbids) the performance of an act that his religious belief forbids (or requires). As a textual matter, we do not think the words must be given that meaning.[...]
Specifically, this case was about the denial of unemployment benefits to two men who took peyote for religious purposes and were subsequently fired from their job - however, the majority opinion is pretty much that any law that applies to the general populace applies to religious expression as well, unless religious expression is specifically exempted.
(Note: The case was decided 6-3 with a Special Concurrence from Justice O'Connor. No Dissenting Opinion, if existent, was available on Oyez.)
Lease agreements also frequently have provisos against open flames (such as candles) or incense burning - in fact, the residency agreement for the dorms at Harvard Law School actually have this clause without any exemption granted for religious purpose. The general problem is that if you don't own the building, you are completely subject to any legally-enforceable clause in the contract - and religious purpose does not guarantee a successful contest against a neutral clause.
(Please note, I am not stating anything more than court precedence here - whether I agree or disagree with the opinion here is something else entirely)