From wikipedia, "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the fifty eight Member States of the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris, France defines freedom of religion and belief as follows: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance." Freedom of religion is considered by many in many nations and people to be a fundamental human right."
Accordingly, most countries have enacted constitutions and laws allowing freedom of religion - a fundamental human liberty. Even in countries with a state religion there are allowances for non-state religions in most of them. Religious freedom is a democratic ideal.
Of course, boundaries are common, just as there are for freedom of speech (e.g., yelling 'fire' in a crowded movie theater would be intolerable if false; most media outlets bar the use of certain words) and for rights of privacy (e.g., mandating that our medical records be made public or that women's restrooms require access by men would be inolerable). Properly, few would support invoking 'religious freedom' as justification for organizing a religion to worship pedophilia or murder.
Importantly, these freedoms are society freedoms, not necessarily organizational requirements. For example, requiring a legitimate religion to include all aspects of another religion would be inappropriate and often seriously disruptive and antithetical, AND a mockery of religious freedom. Requiring Islam to merge Christianity or Judaism into Islam would be heretical, as it would be to mandate that all forms/sects of Christianity include liturgies of all other forms/sects of Christianity. Likewise, a requiring a Buddhist sect to include the liturgies and beliefs of another Buddhist sect would be improper.
Analogously, it would be improper for a particular monastery to be required to serve all religions. It would be nonsense for a Buddhist monastery to be required to serve and fund other religious systems within its organization. It may be 'nice' to permit other religious ceremonies within the monastery, but it must not be an artificial mandate. Otherwise, there would be no religious freedom for this monastery.
Such common sense and logic are inconsistent with NKT's mission to trump if not harm Buddhism. NKT, which broke away from Tibetan Buddhism about 20 years ago, castigating it as degenerate, is immersed in protests against the religious freedom Buddhists who wish to exercise their religious freedom and not worship NKT's supreme deity, Shugden. On behalf of Shugden and according to NKT only the second to ever become enlightened during human life (Gyatso), NKT will not tolerate religious freedom or the preeminence of Buddha Shakyamuni and his teachings. Though no other religion on earth requires other religions to worship its deities, NKT demands it. NKT prohibits images, books and any other support involving The Dalai Lama in its centers. NKT denigrates Sera je Monastery in India, the Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition, The Dalai Lama, and all other monasteries and Buddhists who do not promote Shugden worship or NKT's obsession against them.
NKT is a shameful and shamefully-marketed religion, abusing the almost universal ideal of religious freedom to market Shugden as a mandatory Buddha deity in Tibetan Buddhism.
Shugden, NKT's worship mandate for all Buddhists, whether they want to or not
a defiance of religious freedom