I am amazed by the idea that groups (any groups, not only religious ones) that develop and practice certain ethical norms and philosophies and participate in the public debate should have the same status as groups playing games. And it is insulting to hear that anything else was demanding "religious privilege". How many people have you hopping in the woodlands, eh?  

You're actually shifting the goalposts.

What you are claiming to reply to is this , from Jake :
European Tribune - On Minority Rights and on Beliefs

You of course have a right to practice a religion. You also have a right to go to the local woodlands and LARP on the weekends.

When those two rights have roughly the same status, you have religious freedom.

Not the same thing. Can you see that?

What Jake is saying is that the right to practise a religion is, rightly, protected. So is the right to LARP in the woods. Both are subject to restrictions and caveats (health, safety, respect of other people's rights, etc).

What Jake is saying is that any supplementary rights or protections, accorded to a religious organisation and not accorded to a LARP association, or accorded to people who claim to be acting out of religious motivation and not to other people, constitute religious privilege.

This seems to me to be a fair, unbiased definition of what religious privilege is. Where you, I or Jake may disagree about is the degree to which religious privilege is legitimate, in general or in a particular situation.

We may also disagree as to what constitutes religious privilege in particular cases.

May I request a dispassionate reply as to whether these definitions are OK with you? Then perhaps we can have a more productive discussion?

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II}