still waiting for concrete examples

[Hamilton02 at aol.com]

Art--  The all-clean-shaven rule does not violate the Constitution,  but 
could violate RFRA (but it does not necessarily have to). I don't think  
you're saying that a RFRA violate was automatic following a finding of no  
constitutional violation, right?   So I think we're on the same page  there.  
 
The district court's frustration is with RFRA forcing the courts to act as  
legislators and being forced to figure out whether firefighters should have 
to  shave to protect their lives.  The same concern was in Judge Williams'  
concurrence where she wrung her hands over the fact that the case had 
become an  "experiment" with the safety of the firefighters in DC.
 
Marci
 
 
In a message dated 6/22/2009 8:16:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
ArtSpitzer at aol.com writes:
 

Marci-

I must be slow today.

1. Why does what  I said "explain the district court's frustration with 
what it was being asked  to do"?  If you're suggesting that the judge was 
pissed at my clients (or  at their lawyer) for having somehow caused the Fire 
Department to make lots of  other firefighters shave, I saw no evidence of any 
such thing.  I think  he was oblivious to it.  I would have wished he were 
more attentive to it  -- it would have made him hostile to the Department.  
Or was your  reasoning something else entirely?

2. And I still don't understand why  you think requiring all firefighters 
to be clean-shaven would defeat the RFRA  claim.  Can you help me figure that 
out?

Art  Spitzer



**************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/20090622/6df5a1d8/attachment.htm>