The article discusses the concept of third-party harm when accommodating religious beliefs in laws. Critics have raised objections to this idea, claiming it lacks foundations, is not based on the constitution, and wrongly determines harm to third parties. They also argue that it doesn't apply when both religious and secular beliefs are exempted, and that religious freedom can harm others like other rights. However, the article argues that these objections are not convincing and that developing the third-party harm doctrine can help understand the limits of religious freedom and other rights.