Jew. ? 21 Such a belief would not be analogous to the belief which the EAT ruled in McClintock v Department of Constitutional Affairs [2008] IRLR 29 was not covered by the Regs (and would not be post-amendment): ie, the belief that placement of children with same-sex couples had not been shown to be in the children's best interests. According to the EAT, to constitute a belief there must be a religious or philosophical viewpoint in which one actually believes, rather than merely an opinion based on some real or perceived logic or based on information or lack of information available. ? 28 Domestic law has always been inclined to deal with accommodation cases in this way -- see Ahmed v ILEA [1978] QB 31 in which the Court of Appeal, by contrast with the commission (in Ahmed v UK ), accepted that there had been an interference, though the Court ruled that it was justified. ? 30 Para 22, also citing Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia v Moldova (2002) 35 EHRR 306, 335 (para 117): 'in principle, the right to freedom of religion as understood in the convention rules out any appreciation by the state of the legitimacy of religious beliefs or of the manner in which these are expressed'. ? 31 Para 56, citing Reynolds v United States (1879) 98 US 145; Late Corp of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v United States , Romney v United States (1890) 136 US 1. ? 34 X v