who wore beards as a matter of their religious obligation. See id. at 360-61. This kind of unequal treatment, the Court of Appeals held, “indicates that the [police department] has made a value judgment that secular (i.e., medical) motivations for wearing a beard are important enough to overcome its general interest in uniformity, but that religious motivations are not.” Id. at 366. Subsections (b)(1) and (2) are also rooted in Establishment Clause jurisprudence where the Supreme Court has disapproved of unequal treatment of religious activities measured against secular ones. See Kir-yas Joel Village, 512 U.S. at 704, 114 S.Ct. 2481 (stating that “civil power must be exercised in a manner neutral to religion”); Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 314, 72 S.Ct. 679, 96 L.Ed. 954 (1952) (<HOLDING>). This bar to unequal treatment is, of course,
holding jury is sole judge of witness credibility and may believe some witnesses and refuse to believe others holding that no meaningful distinction exists between those who leave their native country and those who already outside decline to return holding that government may not prefer those who believe in no religion over those who do believe holding that the purpose of a preliminary examination is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed it holding jury as judge of credibility may believe all some or none of the testimony