Israeli Soldiers Punished for Refusing to Wear Yarmulkes, Skirts at Religious Schools
The soldiers, who teach kids how to respond to emergencies, were confined to their base without any disciplinary process after the schools complained

Yaniv Kubovich, Jun 3, 2018

Soldiers from the Home Front Command who teach schoolchildren how to respond during emergencies were confined to their base after nonreligious soldiers refused requests from state religious schools to wear kippot or skirts when they teach in those schools. ...

Hi LTYC,
do you wear your kippah when you go shopping?
Does it get you better prices?

https://w2.chabad.org/media/images/1040/TzBs10403722.jpg

Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986)
Argued:
January 14, 1986
Decided:
March 25, 1986
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986)
Goldman v. Weinberger

No. 84-1097

Argued January 14, 1986

Decided March 25, 1986

475 U.S. 503

Syllabus

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.

236 U.S.App.D.C. 248, 734 F.2d 1531, affirmed.

REHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ joined. STEVENS, J filed a concurring opinion, in which WHITE and POWELL, JJ., joined, post, p. 475 U. S. 510. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 475 U. S. 513. BLACKMUN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 475 U. S. 524. O'CONNOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 475 U. S. 528.

Page 475 U. S. 504

Read More
Opinions
Opinions & Dissents
U.S. Supreme Court
Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986)
Goldman v. Weinberger
No. 84-1097
Argued January 14, 1986
Decided March 25, 1986
475 U.S. 503
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Syllabus
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.
236 U.S.App.D.C. 248, 734 F.2d 1531, affirmed.

LTYC,
Quote:


LTYC admits that he's a Jewish double agent working for the Zionist cause.

Bobby has mistaken LTYC for Rabbi Setanta.

Bvr has made his garage the epicenter of Judaism in Australia.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 4^th, 2024 at 8:43pm:


He is the one whose garage LTYC spies on, LTYC told me he's quite kinky and I couldn't handle what is in his head while he is watch BVR's garage. I'm glad he's not excited by my garage. He sounds like a back door manchild.

Bvr is Baronvonrort, the rabbi of the Ozpolitic death cult cabal.