still waiting for concrete examples

[Hamilton02 at aol.com]

Thanks.  That explains the district court's frustration with what it  was 
being asked to do.  
 
Marci
 
In a message dated 6/22/2009 12:46:06 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
ArtSpitzer at aol.com writes:

I don't think I understand the question, perhaps because  I'm not familiar 
with the CLUB case.  A violation of RFRA doesn't depend  on any 
discrimination; it's enough that the government declines to accommodate  a religious 
exercise, that its failure to do so imposes a substantial burden  on the 
plaintiff's exercise of religion, and that the government could  accommodate the 
religious exercise without significantly undercutting a  compelling interest. 
 Right?  So when the Fire Department failed to  show that half a dozen 
bearded men couldn't safely be accommodated, it  lost.  (My own view is that an 
unlimited number of bearded men could be  accommodated, but the court didn't 
have to find that.)

Had the Fire  Department continued to allow scores of firefighters to wear 
beards for  medical reasons (which it had allowed at from at least the 1970s 
until  mid-2005), the case would have been over much sooner.  But the  
Department's lawyer realized that, and the (white) Chief decided that he'd  
rather force all those (black) firefighters with pseudofolliculitis  barbae to  
shave than allow a small number of firefighter to wear religious beards.   
It didn't make much sense to  me.

Art




**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy 
Steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221823273x1201398689/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=Jun
eExcfooterNO62)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20090622/f8c082ca/attachment.htm>