ruveyn wrote:
AnonymousAnonymous wrote:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/218691-rep-bobby-rush-kicked-off-house-floor-for-wearing-hoodie
He did so in protest of the shooting of Trayvon Martin while
speaking out against racial profiling.
Would a Jewish member of the house be asked to leave if he wore a skull cap?
ruveyn
Raptor wrote:
The first word that comes to my mind is
decorum.
Aside from the hoodie, wtf was his reasoning for ranting like that to congress?
His ranting didn't even make any sense.
There's nothing they can do about what happened, anyway.
Hi ruveyn & Raptor,
Court wrote:
The Constitution does not oblige the government to accommodate religiously motivated conduct that is forbidden by neutral rules, see Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990), and therefore does not entitle anyone to wear religious headgear in places where rules of general application require all heads to be bare or to be covered in uniform ways (for example, by military caps or helmets). See Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503, 106 S.Ct. 1310, 89 L.Ed.2d 478 (1986). Yet the judicial branch is free to extend spectators more than their constitutional minimum entitlement.
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/app ... 53/500176/Court wrote:
Petitioner, an Orthodox Jew and ordained rabbi, was ordered not to wear a yarmulke while on duty and in uniform as a commissioned officer in the Air Force at March Air Force Base, pursuant to an Air Force regulation that provides that authorized headgear may be worn out of doors but that indoors "[h]eadgear [may] not be worn . . . except by armed security police in the performance of their duties." Petitioner then brought an action in Federal District Court, claiming that the application of the regulation to prevent him from wearing his yarmulke infringed upon his First Amendment freedom to exercise his religious beliefs. The District Court permanently enjoined the Air Force from enforcing the regulation against petitioner. The Court of Appeals reversed.
Held: The First Amendment does not prohibit the challenged regulation from being applied to petitioner, even though its effect is to restrict the wearing of the headgear required by his religious beliefs. That Amendment does not require the military to accommodate such practices as wearing a yarmulke in the face of its view that they would detract from the uniformity sought by dress regulations. Here, the Air Force has drawn the line essentially between religious apparel that is visible and that which is not, and the challenged regulation reasonably and evenhandedly regulates dress in the interest of the military's perceived need for uniformity. Pp. 475 U. S. 506-510.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/475/503/
"Decorum" requires the strong restraining with double quad-laces of the American Fasces, --a little more pleasing than the capering of a butcher's block, but not quite so much so as that of a wash-tub. Its greatest merit is the steely rigor of its decorum. The dancers, however, like ourselves, are a shade less appalling proper off the floor than on it.
The axe is more functional with weapon wielding barbarians that are beneath the guillotine:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... statue.jpg
Tadzio