still waiting for concrete examples

[Hamilton02 at aol.com]

Having just read both opinions, which are quite remarkable, especially  
Judge Williams' concurrence in the DC Cir opinion, I have to ask Art one  
question--  It seems quite clear from the record that there really is a  danger 
to those with facial hair in responding to emergencies.  You were  correct 
when you said you won on a procedural point (burden of proof).  The  case also 
seems to have been won based on the district court's failure to read  the 
entire record.
 
But here is my question---  Are those who will be working in these  
positions with facial hair as a result of this case signing agreements  
indemnifying DC in case of injury?  Usually, such uniform/gear decisions  are made by 
the government and, therefore, you would hold the government  liable.  But 
here, the government insisted, based on expert advice, that  there is a 
danger.  Now the government against its better judgment is  being forced by the 
court to put these individuals into active duty...  why  should the government 
(translation: taxpayers) pay when one of them is  injured at a fire due to 
the presence of facial hair?
 
In answer to your earlier question, this is one more case I would put  in 
the category of RFRA folly.
 
Marci 
**************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/20090622/9f964a79/attachment.htm>