Religious commitments

1) I was very surprised, to hear that Kelly was disqualified for a violation of dress codes. This doesn't seem fair since she has gone with out incident for years. 

2) My argument that this was a case of religious discrimination is that 

     - Kelly has gone for years with out incident.

     - The uniform did not give Kelly an unfair edge in competition.

     - The judges told her about alternate options after the race had commenced.

   I do believe that it is fair for some athletes to be disqualified, but in the case of Kelly she had a religious obligation, and in the constitution it says that everyone is free to practice their religion. 

3) I would need a lot more information on the events of the day, i will also try to include the judges opinions as to why they decided to disqualify Kelly. I would also need more evidence from the constitution that speaks of freedom to practice once religion. Past cases where this issue has come up would also be important to the paper. Also the results of the judges decision and how that effected Kelly would also be useful.

4) Rogers doesn't defend his stance very well, specially since that it was found that the alternate options that he said Kelly was given, was given to Kelly after the race. 

5) I think there needs to be exceptions of the rules in some cases, specially when it comes to religious obligations. 

6) No this would not change my opinion on the disqualification of Kelly, i don't think this is a good enough reason to expect an individual to give up her religious dressing. Instead they could use other ways to determine a winner in a close finish. They could use cameras or even high speed video cameras, True this is a more expensive solution, but under the circumstances i think this is what is fair.