My biggest gripe is darn exemptions.
However there is a flip side as one can argue legally for all sorts of exemptions using the exact same reasoning. A Sikh in the UK doesn't have to wear a hard hat as part of his PPE on a building site as part of an exemption, yet the employer assumes liability if a Sikh employee wearing a turban has a head injury as part of his work. Ludicrous.
Yet one can still use this precedent for all sorts of legal shenanigans. Colander's as PPE for FSM believers for example, such as the famous case of the Austrian chap who was allowed to wear one on his driving license. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14135523
However there is a flip side as one can argue legally for all sorts of exemptions using the exact same reasoning. A Sikh in the UK doesn't have to wear a hard hat as part of his PPE on a building site as part of an exemption, yet the employer assumes liability if a Sikh employee wearing a turban has a head injury as part of his work. Ludicrous.
Yet one can still use this precedent for all sorts of legal shenanigans. Colander's as PPE for FSM believers for example, such as the famous case of the Austrian chap who was allowed to wear one on his driving license. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14135523
![[Image: 146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i629.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu13%2FRXM843%2F146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif)
