Hey Sultaana Freeman, show the DMV your mug or stay off the road

[JohnBckWLD]

More crap to tie up the courts. (http://www.mycfnow.com/orlpn/news/stories/news-153362720020627-100631.html)

A 34 year old Florida woman, who converted to islam after a stint as an evangelical preacher is suing the state because they require all drivers licenses to have a facial picture them in the aftermath of 9/11.

The state claims Mrs. Freedman, who's original license was has a shot of her in her niqab showing only her eyes, jeopardizes public safety.

Mrs. Freeman, her husband, her attorney, CAIR, 3 other muslim women in Florida and the ACLU claim requiring a full face photo burdens her exercise of religion. So too, does Orange County Circuit Judge Ted Coleman who refused to dismiss her case and decided to allow it to proceed through the State courts.

Listen lady; Take off the vail, have your DMV mug shot taken like the rest of us and shut the hell up.

While your at it, keep that niqab at home when your out driving around & picking up your kids at soccer practice. The thing looks like it definitely obstructs your view behind the wheel. The practice of your religion doesn't give you the right to start plowing down pedestrians in your 1 1/2 ton SUV just because your husband insists you cover your face and in effect, wear blinders.

The more I think about, the less I'm convinced this has to do with your faith.

Truth be told; I belong to an ancient rastafarian order of naturalist steel workers who's religion requires us to wear our welding helmets and face shields while driving completely stoned & naked between the hours of 7AM to 11:45PM weekdays. If we don't comply with the orders of our high priest, we are forced to dance barefoot on a bed of red-hot bolts and rivets after just 3 bong hits. So even though I somewhat sympatize with your predicament, I choose to obey the laws of my state and defy the tenets of my faith in the interest of civil responsibility, respect of the law and public safety.

I suggest you do the same.

[Milossarian]

Think of what this will do for underagers getting fake IDs if it stands up!


"Well, I guess that could be you ...."

[Monty]

Hey, John. You forgot that the DMV there didn't give her grief for that stance until they decided recently that she's obviously wrong.

FWIW: Muslim scholars indicate she's wrong, but since there's no heirarchy (technically) in dar-al-Islam, she can interpret the scriptures the way she wants.

[wring]

Liberal checking in.

I think she needs to have her pic taken just like others. In order for the DL system to work, she needs to be able to be identified as the holder of the license. (yea, yea, the paper one does until the picture one comes in, point being eventually there is one).

As for the religious objections, my understanding of the veil etc. is the strict Muslims do not allow their women to be out w/o a male escorting them, so, I'm feeling about this about the same as I did w/the women who converted to Muslim while locked up and demanded that I provide non pork bacon for their dining pleasure. I figured if they were ignoring their religious constraints regarding drugs, alcohol, extramaritial sex etc, they were already courting damnation and a bit o' pig wasn't going to push 'em anywhere they weren't already.

I feel differently tho' about having the DL exams be available in other languages.

[wring]

Monty I suspect (having dealt w/buracracies) that what happened on the first go-round was that she appeared in veil, refused to take it off for the pic and some low level bureacrat bought the religious freedom argument instead of bumping it upstairs.

[WV_Woman]

Anyone ever notice how some Muslim women here in the US walk around dressed from head to toe in 100 degree August weather while their husbands waltz around in t-shirts and shorts?

[Monty]

What you suspect and what you feel don't have any bearing in a legal case, just like what I suspect doesn't.

For example: I suspect you're inclined to ignore someone's civil rights based on this comment:

I figured if they were ignoring their religious constraints regarding drugs, alcohol, extramaritial sex etc, they were already courting damnation and a bit o' pig wasn't going to push 'em anywhere they weren't already.

Now, if they'd converted after they got chucked into jail for doing that other stuff, then that other stuff really doesn't have any bearing on them following the new religion, does it?

[wring]

nice try Monty - but in the first place, I did say 'I suspect' wasn't claiming to know to a legal certainty.

and re: the selected quote
The people I was speaking of were inmates in the correction center I was running at the time. and they were in fact, at the same fucking time, doing drugs (we did urinalysis), drinking etc etc etc.

Anything else?

[jk1245]

I seem to recall having pounded in my head over and over in driver's ed "Driving isn't a right. it's a privilege"

If she is so insistent on keeping her face covered, she is well within her rights. The state is of course, well within their rights to refuse her driving privileges. She should feel free to drive on her own private property, however.

[ivylass]

My question...and forgive my ignorance of the Islamic religion, so bear with me...

Islam does not allow women to drive, correct? (I thought I heard that somewhere.) If she is so devout in her religion that she wears the complete headcovering veil, why is she driving?

I agree with jk1245...the state is not obligated to give her a DL if she will not comply with the laws.

[JohnBckWLD]

Originally posted by jk1245
She should feel free to drive on her own private property, however. Maybe she'd feel right at home on one of these (http://www.picoengineering.com/Turf_division_pico_green.htm) Egyptian manufactured Rider mowers or golf carts.

[Tamerlane]

ivylass: Nope. Some fundamentalists ( i.e. the Wahabis in Saudi Arabia where you probably got that story ) are opposed to the concept of women driving ( it's actually a little more involved than just the simple act of driving itself, but suffice it to say it's dumb - IMHO of course ;) ), but that is a pretty rare view in the Muslim world as a whole.

Actually this is an instance where I am inclined to say that the interests of the state trumps the right to individual Freedom of Religion.

By the way, I thought this had come up on this board before, but I can't seem to find a link. Lost in the purge?

- Tamerlane

[Monty]

Yeah, wring. Actually, three things.

1) Don't be such an asshole when you weren't clear to begin with.

2) If they're doing all that other crap, then yeah, they're fucking hypocrites.

3) Which of your civil rights do you want ignored because you might be doing something someone else thinks is against your announced philosophy or religious views?

[obfusciatrist]

Well, I'm not too bothered. Photographs aren't even close to reliable means of identification. I have had drivers licenses that ended up looking nothing like me by the end of the four year lifespan.

Identical twins have drivers license photos that do little to identify them. I say, if she doesn't want her an unveiled picture taken, they should just require that she carry supporting documentation with her (such as a birth certificate, which is all that is required TO GET the drivers license in the first place). But that is up to the DMV to decide, and I don't care much.

But the argument being put forward that DL photos are an important tool for criminal investigations is crap; it is not the responsiblity of the DMV to provide the police with mug shots for every driving citizen. It is not the responsibility of the DMV to provide bartenders with a tool for determining wheather someone is 21. It is the responsibility to ensure that drivers have demonstrated the necessary skills to drive and to provide evidence of that should anybody ever question it. If the DMV decides that can be done without clear photographs (after all, licenses existed for decades before they contained photographs) , then that is fine.

If a judge finds that reasonable accommodations can be made for her religious views, then that is fine with me.

But if the only reason we require a clear photograph is so that the police have a tool for investigation, then that isn't fine. The police should just require everybody to go to the local precint so their picture can be taken; oh, wait, that might not be so legal.

(I have no idea if the linked article talks about the "investigative tool" defense, but the article I first read on this said it was the argument being put forward by the state.)

[wring]

I believe that the 'investigative tool' aspect that is being touted isn't as sophisticated as you suspect. It's more of the 'is the person driving this vehicle claiming to be John Smith really John Smith?" Yes, people change during the course of the time they've got a license, but I don't believe that the average person changes so much that they're virtually unrecognizable w/the old license.

And what would the alternative be? The police have a duty/obligation once they've stopped a vehicle to at the very least confirm the person driving is a licensed driver, that the car's insured and isn't stolen. If they cannot confirm via a picture, what's the alternative for the police on the side of the road?

[Una Persson]

I feel that wring is being pretty clear here. It seems that she feels that this case is little different from her personal experience, where people try to pick and choose which portions of a "religion" they allege they belong to in order to manipulate the system - in this case, the State of Florida.

And if this is how she feels, then I agree with her 100%.

The State (the generic term) can only accomodate Religions to a certain extent. We all know there is a limit, the only debate is over where the limit lies. For example, if one has the specious religion of always driving drunk, well, obviously that's not going to fly. How about Sikhs carrying knives in zero-tolerance schools? How about a Catholic parent who sues a school district such that they will only serve fish on Fridays during Lent? (I hope I have this right...)

This woman, IMO, seems to have crossed the limit. Not by much, I will concede, but really now...

[doreen]

Identical twins have drivers license photos that do little to identify them. I say, if she doesn't want her an unveiled picture taken, they should just require that she carry supporting documentation with her (such as a birth certificate, which is all that is required TO GET the drivers license in the first place). But that is up to the DMV to decide, and I don't care much.

An identical twin's photo license won't distinguish between her and her twin - but it will keep most other people from using that license. BTW, around here, you need a lot more than a birth certificate to get a license (you need a total of six points, and most documents,including a non-photo DL are only worth one)

[Tranquilis]

While photos are not, in fact absolutely perfect gueage of identity, they are a damn good, and very efficient, start.

But in the end, it's about the priviledge of driving. She want's to drive, she gets to play by the (surprisingly liberal) rules. Period.

[Monty]

The altertnative to a photo which more than one person may resemble? Why, a fingerprint of course. Current technology provides for those nifty fingerprint scanners. I had to have my thumb scanned when I got my retired military ID card issued to me, so I know it's in place.

[gobear]

And I suppose you support driving while wearing hijab over the face? If Mayalsian women and other pious Muslim women can get by with having the hair covered, then this woman, who doesn't even have the excuse of being accustomed to full hijab, has not a leg to stand on.

She can wear a burqa at home or out on the town, but not behind the wheel of a car.

[Monty]

So, Anthracite: Which of your civil rights do I get to violate just because I don't like the way you live your life?

[wring]

give it a rest Monty you bitched me out claiming that I was violating civil rights of people based on what they may have done prior to a religious conversion, when in reality, I was pointing out that in these very specific cases, there were people who were demanding a consession based on religious grounds when they were failing at a very substantive way to follow the dictates of that religion, and I was refusing, not to 'deny their civil rights' but to acceed to unreasonable demands (there is no constitutional 'right' to certain types of breakfast meats. I was obligated to provide appropriate food based on dietary and religious concerns, but I was not obligated to provide absolutely everything that some one requested), regardless of the 'rationale' for the request. I also refused to purchase steak and lobster.

So, Antracite came in and tried to point that out to you gently and you want to take her to task over it?

try admitting that you were fucking wrong in your statement to me in the first place.

[Tedster]

What's truly amazing is that the State of Illinois actually issued a license with her wearing a mask (that's what it is, when you get down to it.)

Ya gotta wonder what kind of morons work at the DMV in Illinois....

[minty green]

Just so you know, Monty, it's well-established that the state may inquire into the genuineness of a person's professed religious beliefs and discount them appropriately when found to be fake. The state may not, however, inquire into the truth or falsity of the underlying beliefs. wring's refusal to provide a Muslim-friendly diet to people who apparently were not genuine Muslims easily passes the Free Exercise smell test.

[Monty]

Just so you know, forcing someone to eat something forbidden by their religion is a violation of their civil rights. I bitched you out because you didn't make any kind of time frame (such as "hey, they're doing this crap right now") in your freaking post.

minty: No, it doesn't. It easily passes the "hey, you don't follow all the dictates of your religion so fuck it, I'm going to force you to not follow yet another one."

BTW, I'm fucking stunned. I didn't know you were such a hateful asshole against Musliims.

[wring]

excuse the fuck out of me, Monty but just where in the fuck did I say that I forced anyone to eat anything?

hmmmm??

Nowhere, right?

Learn to read first, before you go shooting your fucking mouth off.

[Monty]

Oh, right. Let's just continue to put food in front of people their religion forbids them to eat. You're not forcing them to eat. But what's the alternative? Right! Not eating.

I can read. I'm still stunned that you're taking this approach.

[Monty]

BTW, asshole of the year, who posted this?

I figured if they were ignoring their religious constraints regarding drugs, alcohol, extramaritial sex etc, they were already courting damnation and a bit o' pig wasn't going to push 'em anywhere they weren't already.

[Fenris]

Originally posted by Monty
So, Anthracite: Which of your civil rights do I get to violate just because I don't like the way you live your life?


Oh blow it out your ass, Monty

The "right" to drive is not one of the freedoms afforded by our constitution. Nor is freedom of religion absolute.

So far, Wring, Anth and Minty have been clear and cogent and you're having a tantrum (Minty is hateful to Muslims? bwahahaha!).

And while was kind of fun to watch you rant, it's getting tiresome at this point...if you're going to melt-down, why not get it ver with.

Fenris

[gobear]

And calling Minty Green "a hateful asshole against Muslims"?

Minty Green???

The dude is one of the most patient and rational posters on the board! You are so way out of line on this one, Monty. For writing

Just so you know, Monty, it's well-established that the state may inquire into the genuineness of a person's professed religious beliefs and discount them appropriately when found to be fake. The state may not, however, inquire into the truth or falsity of the underlying beliefs

he gets called a hateful asshole? You need to apologize right fast, Monty.

[wring]

asshole. I refused to provide beef bacon. I did not refuse to provide other foods that fit their dietary concerns. Show me where I wrote that the only thing I provided for breakfast was ham products, and or other things they couldn't eat.

Try, really. Can't do it, can you?

You fucked up here and are acting like a jerk. you misunderstood my original post, I corrected you and you've called me names and accused me of violating peoples civil rights, and telling me that I forced people to eat pork or starve.

I have said nothing of that sort, and did nothing of the sort.

Stop accusing me of wrongful acts w/o substantiation. That's called 'stop being a jerk'.

[Monty]

And how about stop being a liar?

What part of "I figured if they were ignoring their religious constraints regarding drugs, alcohol, extramaritial sex etc, they were already courting damnation and a bit o' pig wasn't going to push 'em anywhere they weren't already" is the reading public supposed to know you really didn't mean?

What part of the definition of "stunned" do you not understand?

Fenris: Blow it out your own ass. I directed that comment to wring. See that posting there with those very words in it?

I used to respect you, wring. I now see that you are a liar and a bigot. Frankly, I'm seriously disappointed in that.

[Monty]

Hey, I hope I'm wrong. Frankly, I find it disgusting to put something you know someone has religious objections against consuming in front of them, and the disgusting part (to me) is that the decision to do that is based on "I figured if they were ignoring their religious constraints regarding drugs, alcohol, extramaritial sex etc, they were already courting damnation and a bit o' pig wasn't going to push 'em anywhere they weren't already."

See that first sentence right there above? See it? See it? The one where I said I hope I'm wrong.

[Una Persson]

Originally posted by Monty
So, Anthracite: Which of your civil rights do I get to violate just because I don't like the way you live your life?
It could be argued that several of my "civil rights" are already either heavily restricted or taken away, depending on how one defines them. I mean, there has to be some sort of consensus on what constitutes a "civil right" and what constitutes "what someone wants to have".

Let's take the example - Sikh children wanting to carry their tiny ceremonial knives into schools. Now, imagine it's a "zero-tolerance" school - you know, where you can expelled for having a butter knife in your car? Well...haven't the civil rights of the Sikh been violated, if they can't carry their knives?

And let's say I don't especially like the idea of Some People being allowed to carry deadly weapons in school with impunity, because that's their religion. So I decide to carry my Gerber Mark II into school, because in the Religion of Una, all women must be armed to protect the flower of their virginity from the wickedness of the men, who would steal their nectar and spread their loathsome pollen into their flower...

And now the school decides to expell me. Why? Don't they have to prove that my religion is not "valid"? And how do they do that, exactly? Why isn't my religion true and valid, if it is a belief system that I truly believe in? Or maybe, even better, they can get into micromanaging exactly what type of knife we all can carry: Sikhs from West India can carry a 2-inch blade, non-folding. Sikhs from East India, since straight blades are an abomination before God, must carry a 1-inch folding blade...meanwhile, the followers Religion of Una are asking a judge what acid test was used exactly to determine that her religion was not "real" and other religions were "real". And the judge is wondering why he didn't retire 3 years ago and buy that lake house he wanted.

The State can easily get caught up in nitpicky Mickey-Mouse bullshit like this very quickly. So why not treat people as equally as possible, as fairly as possible? Yes, some people will get the short end of the stick - but then, my Manual of Life had the Chapter on "Fairness" torn out and used in an outhouse, when the old Sears catalogue done' ran out of pages.

[gobear]

Here's what Wring wrote:

I'm feeling about this about the same as I did w/the women who converted to Muslim while locked up and demanded that I provide non pork bacon for their dining pleasure. I figured if they were ignoring their religious constraints regarding drugs, alcohol, extramaritial sex etc, they were already courting damnation and a bit o' pig wasn't going to push 'em anywhere they weren't already

Women in jail decide to call themselves Muslim and fuck with the jailer by asking for special foods in addition to their regular diet are in no danger of starvation. YOU, Monty are the liar and bigot here. You are accusing Wring of torturing and starving prisoners--that's fucked up.

Dude, take the lithium, you'll feel better.

[wring]

Show me where the fuck I lied you twit.

In the point you're quoting, I didn't say they were forced to eat anything.

It was less than clear, but a simple question would have clarified it, instead you've escalated it to enormous levels.

Bigot?

Where?

I said (and still maintain) that for those people who I worked with who claimed to have converted to Islam, yet still Swore, drank, shot up heroin, cocaine, and everything else around, stole, lied, etc, weren't in a position to demand that I make large concessions to their dietary concerns, and didn't appear to be serious in their conversion. It seemed from working where they lived and watching their actions over a course of several months that the only tenents of Islam that they did adhere to was a desire for non pork products and a preference for the tag 'el' at the end of their name.

Not that you fucking asked (rather than accused) but I provided ample food that was DID adhere to their claimed religious concerns, but chose to not provide absolutely everything they asked for. I drew the line at Beef Bacon which was substantially more expensive at the time. During the entire 14 years that I did this, there wasn't a single grievance that was found having merit. Not a single one.

It was a reasonable line, and I stand behind my decision.

You're acusing me of serious board violations.

Show me where the fuck I lied and where I'm being bigotted.

[TeaElle]

To steer this flame fest back on track, I will be following this case with interest as the Florida DMV tries to explain why it's necessary to have a license with a photograph in their state. I'm especially interested in hearing their rationale in contrast to other states which permit those with a religious objection to photography (or inability to be in the state at the time that their prior license expires) to have a license without a photo, like Pennsylvania. Or in contrast to those states which regularly issues licenses without a clear photo of a full face, like all of those states which picture under 21 drivers in profile instead of straight on, which was SOP for several midwestern and southern states for quite a few years (and may still be -- can anyone confirm?).

Freeman has offered to have a thumbprint on file and pictured on her license. Florida turned down that offer, btw, even though a thumbprint is far better identification than a picture -- with or without veil -- could ever be.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

From the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code (http://members.aol.com/StatutesP1/75PA1510.html):

The department shall, upon payment of the required fee, issue to every qualified applicant a driver's license indicating the type or general class of vehicles the licensee is authorized to drive and any endorsements or restrictions, which license shall contain a distinguishing number assigned by the department to the licensee, the actual name, date of birth, residence address, a color photograph or photographic facsimile of the licensee, such other information as may be required by the department, and either a facsimile of the signature of the licensee or a space upon which the licensee shall write his usual signature with pen and ink.

So, not that I want to start a big war over this, tlw, but I think you need to check on stuff before you speak of it.

And fingerprints are inadequate for immediate identification, which is what driver's licenses are all about.

[Brutus]

A thumbprint cannot conveniently be checked. Yes, the technology to do so is getting better, smaller, and cheaper, but still costs too much for PD's.

A picture is simple, cheap, effective (enough), and the vast majority of people have no problem with it. Like many people said, she is under no obligation to get her bare-faced picture taken. But if she does not, she does not meet the requirements for a DL.

[minty green]

Monty, I cordially and respectfully ask you to retract that slur on my motives. Immediately.

[BiblioCat]

Originally posted by tlw
Or in contrast to those states which regularly issues licenses without a clear photo of a full face, like all of those states which picture under 21 drivers in profile instead of straight on, which was SOP for several midwestern and southern states for quite a few years (and may still be -- can anyone confirm?).
JFTR, Maryland does the profile photo for under-21 drivers. I always thought it made age verification easier for liquor and tobacco purchasing.

[Tranquilis]

Monty has a habit of calling poeple liars when backed into a corner. Ignore it, it's an admssion of sorts.

[Monty]

minty: It wasn't directed to you. It wasn't directed toyou. It wasn't directed to you.

And, apparently, my posting of "I hope I'm wrong" didn't clear anything else up either.

wring: I really don't believe you're either a liar or a bigot. That's why I said I was stunned by your comment above about "bit o' pig." Your, as you just recently posted, stance of not providing the extra stuff is certainly the way to go. But, surely, you see how "a bit o' pig wasn't going to push them anywhere" can easily be taken to mean that instead of providing a substitute you continued to provide the forbidden stuff. Had you been doing that, I'd've been incredibly shocked. Your posting made it sound like you had and thus I was shocked.

To review:
minty: I didn't attack you.
wring: Does that suffice as an apology?
gobear: I don't need lithium. Read the follow-on post next time, just like I shall!

[minty green]

Originally posted by Monty
minty: No, it doesn't. It easily passes the "hey, you don't follow all the dictates of your religion so fuck it, I'm going to force you to not follow yet another one."

BTW, I'm fucking stunned. I didn't know you were such a hateful asshole against Musliims.You can see how I might be a wee bit confused here, I hope?

[Monty]

Yep. Are we all cool with each other again? I contributed to some serious misunderstanding here and I like y'all and don't want to miss some rather cool postings I know you're all going to be making in the immediate future.

[minty green]

I'm cool. And it saves me the trouble of looking up all those Free Exercise cases on Findlaw.

[Monty]

Tranq: You err.

[Monty]

:)

[wring]

Monty may I respectfully suggest that if you find a posting unclear, that you ask vs. accuse the first time around? in looking back, my original posting wasn't as crystal clear as it should be. However, when you followed up harshly (IMHO), I posted clarifications. If they weren't sufficient, asking would have clarified it. Instead, you chose to call me names and accuse me of violating people's civil rights. and then went on to attack others as well.

Again - I admit that my original post was not clear, and should have been clarified.

But for the 14 years that I ran the correction center, I was very careful to not allow any personal feelings about some one interfere or govern how I handled the case. In fact, when I was assaulted by one client (thrown up against a wall - three people had to pull her off me), the investigator checking into the incident commented that he'd never seen such an objective report of being actually assaulted.

and to be accused as I was, really bothered me, because of its implications about what I do professionally.

However. I'm willing to put it down to a misunderstanding, as you've indicated that is what happened on your end.

Fair enough?

[Monty]

Fair enough! Like I said, I like y'all.

[obfusciatrist]

Let me ask this:

If she is driving and wearing her whatever it is called and gets pulled over for speeding, can the police officer pulling her over require her to remove it for purposes of identification?

If a police officer pulls over a speeding clown on his way to a party, can the officer require the clown to remove the makeup for purposes of identification?

Now, obviously, if the person is arrested then the officers can do this (I think), but can they do so in these situations?

[TeaElle]

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
So, not that I want to start a big war over this, tlw, but I think you need to check on stuff before you speak of it.

I was speaking from personal experience, and unfortunately, I cannot find the waiver of photograph information online, but you can, indeed, have the photo requirement waived under certain circumstances. The information on how to do so is included in the paperwork that the Commonwealth sends out to drivers when their licenses need to be renewed.

Of course, we could take the word of an AOL member's website as definitive. Ahem.

And fingerprints are inadequate for immediate identification, which is what driver's licenses are all about.

No, driver's licenses are not "all about" immediate identification. A driver's license is meant to show that the bearer has passed the examination to be certified as an authorized driver of a motor vehicle in the issuing state. It is not meant to show that the bearer is the person in a particular photo and so says/so verifies the state. It's only been within the last thirty years that photos became a part of a driver's license, and the driver's license has become a means of identification -- primarily for the benefit of the bearer, not the authorities.

There are other means by which the police could identify Freeman should they need to verify who she is -- the same means by which they could identify any of us if we did not have a driver's license, if we looked substantially different from the photo on our driver's license, or if our driver's licenses were not available to them when we were pulled over/arrested/what have you.

I think of my friend Sable, who is always seen in public as a glamourous brunette woman but whose driver's license reveals that she is, in reality, a nerdy looking blond man named William. She is not in the process of changing genders, she's simply a drag queen who likes to be in drag all the time. If she were pulled over, there is no reason why a police officer should believe that Sable and the pictured William are one and the same. A certain level of work would have to be undertaken to prove that. Similarly, a certain level of work would have to be undertaken to prove that a veiled woman with a biometric identifier is who she (and her driver's license) claims she is.

[JohnBckWLD]

Maybe Sable's solution is to have a genitalia snapshot in lieu of a face picture on the driver's license

[Monty]

Wasn't there a story a long time ago in which some Englishmen were visiting Saudi Arabia and the wife of the visted chief fell off a horse or camel, thus causing her robe to <ahem> display all but her face? And the chief was quite pleased that she'd kept her face covered?

[mandielise]

WOW! I feel like I just watched a soap opera. Oh the drama! I'm just glad y'all are cool again.

I personally agree with the idea that a license is a privilage, not a right. I actually believe that every state should have their licenses set up the same way and contain the same information. I'm from NY and have a license therein, yet I attend university in LA. When I go out on the weekends, I have to point out the red ink denoting my birthday against the pink backdrop of the card! Pretty foolish, eh?

But seriously, even if this lady is a devout Muslim and honestly believes that she shouldn't be seen without her veil, it causes a problem for police officers and citizens. I think our government has a tendancy to take away our rights and privilages too quickly in order to pretend we're more safe (as in post 9/11 airport control and racial profiling). However, in this case, I feel it's justified.

[Typo Negative]

I think the woman should take the bus.

[Profane]

A NYT article on this subject contained the following :

...at least a dozen states permit people to obtain driver licenses without photographs for religious reasons.




Here's a link (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/27/national/27LICE.html) you may need to register to see it though.

[Gary Kumquat]

I'm confused - when did driving become a right?

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Upon further review (http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/067/chapter73/s73.2.html), tlw, allow me to eat crow. It would appear that you can, in fact, get one without a picture. Though under what circumstances I'm not sure.

Therefore, I withdraw any unkind remarks.

This should teach me some humility. Unfortunately, it probably won't. ;)

[obfusciatrist]

Originally posted by Gary Kumquat
I'm confused - when did driving become a right?

Driving is not a right, and I don't think anybody is claiming it is.

However, driving is a privelege controlled by the state and they should not deny that privelege, when reasonable alternatives are available, simply because one of the requirements conflicts with someone's religious views.

I have no problem with a judge determining whether there are reasonable alternatives in this case. If there are none, I'm sure the judge will make such a ruling (though the fact that many other states manage it will be a good argument that there are reasonable alternatives).

And that is all that has happened here, a judge has ruled that this case can proceed. No decision has been made on the point in question.

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally posted by obfusciatrist
Driving is not a right, and I don't think anybody is claiming it is.
But that's what confused me. From the OP's link:
Freeman's lawyer, Howard Marks, said that the cancellation of her license violated her religious freedom, right to privacy and freedom of speech, according to a report.
I'd like to know how the cancellation of a driving license violates her rights to privacy and freedom of speech?

[Monty]

Gary:

The denial of her rights are from the government's arbitrary decision (arbitrary according to her and/or her lawyer). The denial of her privacy would be (again according to her and/or her lawyer) from being forced to display a part of her body she believes she's required to keep hidden.

[Gary Kumquat]

I can see the lines they're trying to pursue, just not the logic. How does a refusal to grant a driving license affect someone's rights, unless driving is a right?

Out of interest, does US passport require an uncovered photo?

[Monty]

Because her complaint has everything to do with her right to be treated equally to other applicants by the governmental entity concerned.

[Gary Kumquat]

But other candidates have to have aun uncovered photo on their licenses, so surely she is being treated equally?

[Una Persson]

Originally posted by Gary Kumquat
Out of interest, does US passport require an uncovered photo?
Yes it does. And unlike Florida, the Feds won't bother to even argue outside of a Federal Court with someone and their lawyer trying to manipulate the system.

Your last post is dead-on, Gary. She wants unequal treatment for herself, not equal treatment.

[Monty]

Hey, I think she's wrong too. There's a definite difference between being required to show your face and being required to show your breast or vagina. I'm just saying that the tack she and/or her lawyers are taking is that those are the same.

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally posted by Anthracite
Your last post is dead-on, Gary. She wants unequal treatment for herself, not equal treatment.
Good to know that it wasn't just me being obtuse then. How the hell can you argue that applying a common sense rule across the board is discrimination?

Still, I suppose that if you're going to have a democratic and fair system, you just have to accept that occasionally idiots are going to try to screw with it.

[wring]

why it might be considered 'unequal treatment'.

example: School has a policy that only couples consisting of a male and a female can go to the prom. This would be unequal treatment for gays in that they could not attend the dance as a couple with their significant other, but it would be a case of the school enforcing the same exact rule across the board.

so, the distinction is that in your religion (Christianity, atheist, agnostic, druid, whatever) there is no specification that women should keep their faces covered in public, therefore the rule about the dl photo will not effect you, while in her religion, it would. So, for her the choice is "obey her religion or be able to drive" while you're not put in that quandry.

Note please that I think that this is a case where societal rules/needs outweigh the individual's personal rights, but I thought I should point out how using exactly the same rules can result in different people being treated differently.

(I also tried the same argument w/my daddy when I was in High school - his 'rule' was that female children in his house couldn't date until they were 16 years old. I pointed out that my sister, who's b/day was in April, had her b'day happen while she was a sophomore, while I had to wait until my junior year (since mine was in October). It didn't work w/him.)

[catsix]

Driving is a privilege, not a right, and if she wants the privilege, she's going to comply with the rules.

And I am also concerned as to whether or not this veil that she wears restrits her peripheral vision (or her vision in general) significantly enough that it's a risk to other motorists.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be in an accident with someone because their headgear meant they didn't see me as they sped through a yield sign.

[JohnBckWLD]

Originally posted by wring
gays...could not attend the dance as a couple with their significant other...a case of the school enforcing the same exact rule across the board.

...societal rules/needs outweigh the individual's personal rights, but I thought I should point out how using exactly the same rules can result in different people being treated differently.You're using a devil's advocate argument but only looking at one side of the proverbial fence.

As you pointed out, all societies have the right to enforce rules, laws and codes of conduct.

Especially against religious sects because there's nothing preventing new ones from being formed on a daily basis. (Did someone say tax exemption?)

Even though those rules are potentially unfair, inconvenient, or in contradiction to an individuals religious, moral or sexual tenets; they're a necessary evil.

Finding the right balance is the difficult part because no 2 people will agree exactly to what those regulations should be.

If we jump to the other side of the post and rail fence of your argument; Polygamy would be back in fashion in Utah, maybe even in NY if I could afford 2 wives Christian Scientists would be allowed to let their children die at home, medically unsupervised, for whatever ailed them.

If we carry your gay prom date argument (which I don't oppose) to its' next logical step What would stop Nebraska farmboys from bringing sheep to the prom? What would prevent naturalists from strutting around naked in the streets(dare I say, Yuck!) Cock & pit bull fighting would have higher attendance in the basements of the Bronx than Yankee Stadium during a weekend Bosox series Arc welders, Bee-keepers, fencers and medieval knight portrayers could form a religion that requires them to wear their heargear everytime they're in public.

Absurdity to make a point...but I'll bet we wouldn't have to look to far to find proponents of any of the above groups.

[wring]

JOhn my post was merely in answer to the speculation of "but we are treating them equally why should they get upset?". If an employer required all employees to work on Saturdays, it would cause a religious issue for certain employees but not for others, and to insist that you're 'merely treating everybody the same' is to ignore that fact.

I agree that there needs to be a balance yaddy yaddy yaddy. I don't agree that the argument "but we're treating them exactly the same" is the most effective one to use in this case because they're not really being treated the same. Only one is being asked to choose between adherence to their religious beliefs and adherence to the rule of the land. So, no they're not being treated exactly the same, but yes, it's (IMHO) the correct application of regulations vs. personal liberties.

[YiBaiYuan]

Being from Florida I have seen this couple interviewed by the local TV news several times. What I find interesting (not a put-down, just "interesting"), is that during all the interviews only the husband speaks. The wife is standing two steps behind him, with her eyes riveted only on him, as he tell the reporters, "She believes this ...", and, "She feels that ..." I have never yet heard her express for herself her views on the subject. Perhaps this is another aspect of her/their beliefs.

And, as a matter of fact (for those who asked), her husband says showing her face IS the same as displaying her breasts. (Must resist, must resist, ohhh...) That must be some face!!

One other thing, I too think that to gain a privilege you must do whatever the one granting it requires. But for some reason, the Florida DMV has yet to present the "privilege" argument (that I'm aware of, anyway).

Finally, doesn't The State find it sufficiently compelling to restrict the religious use of drugs? In some instances religious expression must yield to the common practice. The big question, of course, is, "What are those instances and who decides them?"

[World Eater]

Why doesn't Florida tell them to fuck off using the privilege not a right argument?

[Gary Kumquat]

They said a thread could not be resurrected from the dead, but look Igor - it lives...IT LIVES!

[milroyj]

Update from today's Chicago Tribune (requires registration):

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0305280331may28,1,2958225.story?coll=chi%2Dnewsnationworld%2Dhed

Hmm, possibly another reason why she wants to keep her face covered:

An Illinois police report says the couple, who were foster parents to 3-year-old twin sisters, hesitated when medical staff asked to examine the girls at a hospital in 1998. The couple were raising the girls as Muslim and both girls were wearing what police called "Muslim attire." One of the girls had a broken arm and both had numerous bruises and marks on their bodies.

A year later, Sultaana Freeman was convicted of aggravated battery with bodily harm and served 18 months of probation. In 1999, her husband was convicted and given probation on a charge of reckless discharge of a handgun.

Unfortunately, the judge in FL has decided not to use the above info in making her decision.

[milroyj]

Ok, now this is just getting stupid. According to CNN, women in Egypt, U.A.E., Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and Jordan do not cover their faces in ID pictures.

Why should Sandy Kellar in Florida be an exception?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/28/license.veil.ap/index.html

[even sven]

Unfortunately, the judge in FL has decided not to use the above info in making her decision.

Because she might be beating children underneath her veil, which would distract her from driving? Now, child abuse is a dispicable thing, but what the hell does it have to do with driving and veils?

[Monty]

I caught some of the case on Court TV today. What I found interesting was that the lawyer was questioning Freeman about Sunna and Hadith. Why didn't they get an actual expert on that?

[milroyj]

Originally posted by even sven
Because she might be beating children underneath her veil, which would distract her from driving? Now, child abuse is a dispicable thing, but what the hell does it have to do with driving and veils?

The issue isn't only with driving and veils, which could be a safety hazard to everybody else, but also with proper photo identification and driving.

It's a little too convenient for her to claim that showing her face for an ID picture violates her religion, but it doesn't for the women in the other Muslim countries listed. Also in Iran, where they don't even cover their face while driving.

Maybe she's on the lam from some other crime? Robbed a liquor store on the lower part of town? Whupped some other child in a store parking lot on video? Maybe she's been shown on America's Most Wanted? Sorry, I'm not buying Sandy's story.

[wring]

Originally posted by milroyj
Maybe she's on the lam from some other crime? Robbed a liquor store on the lower part of town? Whupped some other child in a store parking lot on video? Maybe she's been shown on America's Most Wanted? Sorry, I'm not buying Sandy's story.

Clever wench that she is, too, hiding in plain sight w/all this publicity.


On the OP - she's an American citizen convert, right? sometimes converts are much more immersed if you will, in the object of their conversion.

however, I don't see it as a freedom of religion issue, she can, in fact freely practice her religion as she sees fit. Should she wish to drive, she'll have to make a choice to either keep a license or the veil.

[minty green]

Originally posted by Monty
What I found interesting was that the lawyer was questioning Freeman about Sunna and Hadith. Why didn't they get an actual expert on that?Because the court may inquire into the honesty on the claimant's claim to hold particular religious beliefs, but not the truth or appropriateness of those beliefs.

I have seen stories indicating that both the state and Mrs. Freeman intend to call religious scholars to support their claims about the requirements of the Qu'ran. But while the parties can call pretty much whoever they want and ask them anything as long as the other side doesn't object, the court itself should not pay any attention to opinions of those scholars when making its decision.

[milroyj]

Originally posted by wring
Clever wench that she is, too, hiding in plain sight w/all this publicity.

Yeah, I know. Still, something's not right with her whole story.

On the OP - she's an American citizen convert, right? sometimes converts are much more immersed if you will, in the object of their conversion.

Granted, but if her take on the religion is more strict than in some of the Islamist countries, I'm not necessarily buying it. Per chance she has another reason? Not necessarily the crime aspect either, maybe having something to do with her two-bit husband.

however, I don't see it as a freedom of religion issue, she can, in fact freely practice her religion as she sees fit. Should she wish to drive, she'll have to make a choice to either keep a license or the veil.

We agree on that.

[elucidator]

If we can tolerate the quirks and foibles of the Amish, why not cut a Muslim some slack? Whats the big hairy ass deal?

[SpaceGhostofArrakis]

....The Amish don't demand they get their pictures taken covered? (Yeah, yeah, they don't allow their pics taken at all. Bite me)

[Finagle]

Originally posted by elucidator
If we can tolerate the quirks and foibles of the Amish, why not cut a Muslim some slack? Whats the big hairy ass deal?

Not only a faulty analogy, but wrong as well. When faced with compelling state interest, the Amish have to comply as well.

http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20020606opinionp3.asp

[elucidator]

What "compelling state interest"? Is she asking to be excused from having tailights on her car? Nope. Want to mount heat seeking missile to smite the infidel? Negatory.

Most religious requirements are pretty damn silly to those who don't share them, and it behooves us to try not to be petty.

If you were Jewish, would you let them tattoo "Jesus is Lord" on your face so's you could drive a car?

"Compelling state interest", my ass.

[Finagle]

Elucidator, maybe if you read the other posts in the thread before posting, it would help? The state has an interest in being able to identify the driver of a vehicle in a rapid and efficient manner. No state, incidentally, has a compelling interest in your ass.


Your "tatoo on the forehead" strawman is too retarded to even bother refuting.

[Finagle]

Elucidator, maybe if you read the other posts in the thread before posting, it would help? The state has an interest in being able to identify the driver of a vehicle in a rapid and efficient manner. No state, incidentally, has a compelling interest in your ass.


Your "tatoo on the forehead" strawman is too retarded to even bother refuting.

[danceswithcats]

When I first read the thread title, I thought: Wow-DMV is giving away mugs to promote safe consumption of beverages while operating a motor vehicle. Where's my DMV mug? Dammit-I just renewed my license and didn't get one.

Regarding posts about the Amish, they are aplenty where I live, and don't permit their pictures to be taken. They don't need a driver's license because they drive.....HORSES!

Seriously, some sects of Amish and Mennonite do not operate motor vehicles, and although I may be mistaken, PA will issue non-operator ID cards that do not have pictures, such that they may participate in activities that require official identification, while maintaining adherence to their faith.

[chukhung]

For those of you who were wondering what was beneath the veil, the Smoking Gun has a mugshot of the unmasked Sultaana Freeman (previously Sandra Keller) here, http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/sultaana1.html.

It was taken when Ms Freeman was arrested for battering a foster child in Illinois in 1999.

[JohnBckWLD]

Thanks, World Eater for reviving this moldy oldie. I thought I saw another, newer thread, just recently. In any case, I hope Howard Marks, Freeman's FCLU attorney, is dispatched up to NY after the trial and offers free assistance with my ongoing rastafarian naturalist, steel workers sect dilemma.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Originally posted by milroyj
Yeah, I know. Still, something's not right with her whole story. I don't have a cite for this but I heard today that her husband had been found in posession of several fake IDs. If true, then it definately sounds like something larger is going on.

[elucidator]

Finagle, I get the impression you are more interested in sticking it to me than whether or not a valid argument is being made.

Jealousy is a terrible thing, my child. It makes one peevish and small-minded, and blocks your development.

(pats finanklebite on the head in kindly and avuncular fashion)

[minty green]

Nope, Finagle is entirely right on this one.

[elucidator]

Could happen, I suppose. What do you think the effect on the price of pork chops will be when pigs can fly straight to the market without transport?

But seriously, folks.......howcum, Minty? As noted above, there are any number of situations where such licenses have been issued without pictures. Has the sky fallen? Are our highways littered with ruined wrecks from unphotographed drivers?

Howzabout a compromise? Lets say she gets a drivers license without a photo, but with the proviso that if she is stopped for a safety violation, her car is towed, or kept by the side of the road until some form of ID verification is performed. After all, as long as she is driving safely, and obeying all the rules of the road, there is no "compelling reason" for the cop to even need to see her license, much less her picture.

[minty green]

Whether a driver's licenses have been issued in the past without a photo is irrelevant to the requirement now that all drivers be photographed with their faces visible. That is an entirely reasonable requirement, established for the purpose of enabling law enforcement officers to quickly and reliably establish the identity of the driver of a motor vehicle. It matters not one whit that other states apparently don't care about identifying drivers, because Florida obviously does.

The question, elucidator, is whether this requirement discriminates against Mrs. Freeman or was intended to single out her and others like her who believe that revealing their faces is an affront to god. The answer to both those questions is, from all appearances, no.

Rastafarians don't get a special dispensation to smoke weed. Pseudo-Mormon fundamentalists don't get to marry 12-year-old girls. The Amish don't get to drive their horse carts on the roads of Pennsylvana without reflectors on the rear. And by god, Sultanna Freeman can either put her mug on her driver's license or she can take the fucking bus.

[Zenster]

This whole issue is not even worthy of debate or a Pit thread. Driving is a privilege, not a right. One of the prerequisites for obtaining a driver's license is correct and irrefutable identification of yourself. Fingerprints cannot be accurately checked in the field. A photo is the most accepted way of doing so. To protest such measures is well within her rights. To expect a license to be issued to her without submitting a specification portrait of herself is not.

What a moronic rutbag.

[Testy]

Originally posted by Monty
Wasn't there a story a long time ago in which some Englishmen were visiting Saudi Arabia and the wife of the visted chief fell off a horse or camel, thus causing her robe to <ahem> display all but her face? And the chief was quite pleased that she'd kept her face covered?

I don't know about the visiting Englishman but I do have a friend who wandered into a women's restroom here. The woman he inadvertantly surprised grabbed her abayya and covered her face with it, leaving everything else exposed. In later conversations I was told that "we all look the same down there anyway."

As far as the Mrs. Whosits adopting a religion, I don't think the Quran requires covering the face. Modesty, yes, but not wearing a mask. Would it be fair to say that what she has adopted is a culture rather than a religion? Moslem women in every other country I've visited dress normally or maybe wear a headscarf, not a mask.


Testy

[elucidator]

Minty, you ignorant slut.

You may, if you wish, insist that the issue is discrimination. I insist that the game isn't worth the candle. Big hairy ass deal, says the ever calm E. What is the dreadful consequence of a police officer being unable to instantly assure the identity of the motorist? If she behaves herself behind the wheel, the issue very well may never arise. Why not give her the chance, assuming that these rumors about her unsavory past are just that? In what way will the public order and the commonweal suffer if we permit the crime of Driving While Different?

In the words of Hugo Black "Feh. So let her drive, already".

[Una Persson]

Originally posted by minty green
Whether a driver's licenses have been issued in the past without a photo is irrelevant to the requirement now that all drivers be photographed with their faces visible. That is an entirely reasonable requirement, established for the purpose of enabling law enforcement officers to quickly and reliably establish the identity of the driver of a motor vehicle. It matters not one whit that other states apparently don't care about identifying drivers, because Florida obviously does.

The question, elucidator, is whether this requirement discriminates against Mrs. Freeman or was intended to single out her and others like her who believe that revealing their faces is an affront to god. The answer to both those questions is, from all appearances, no.

Rastafarians don't get a special dispensation to smoke weed. Pseudo-Mormon fundamentalists don't get to marry 12-year-old girls. The Amish don't get to drive their horse carts on the roads of Pennsylvana without reflectors on the rear. And by god, Sultanna Freeman can either put her mug on her driver's license or she can take the fucking bus.
::claps hands::

Well put. For all appearances, some who support Ms. Freeman seem to be doing so merely out of a need to be nonsensically contrarian.

[minty green]

Nope, fuck that shit. There is no "unless it hurts your feelings" exception to every law on the books, nor should there be.


(Actually, there might be one on the books in Florida, but that's their choice.)

[minty green]

That was, of course, a reply to elucidator, not Anthractite.

[elucidator]

No, fuck that other shit. You have offered no reason to believe that this is as trivial a matter as "hurt feelings". For all you and I know, her religious convictions are sincere and her need to drive compelling, no evidence has been offered otherwise.

The law is a human institution, and subject to humane limitations, and generous interpretation. If your case rests entirely on a somewhat anal insistence that no exceptions be made, it is a poor thing indeed. Machinery is adamant and unyielding, I see no reason why we should emulate that.

[Evil Captor]

Originally posted by Gary Kumquat
I'm confused - when did driving become a right?

You're not just confused, you're anti-American. Of course driving is a right -- the basic American approach to rights is that it's our right to do it, whatever it is, and the gummint better have a damn good reason if they wanna try and take it away.

Thusly, every citizen is presumed to have the right to drive. Damn good reasons to take it away might include: being blind, being a fucking drunk, being unable to pass a reasonably concocted drivers license exam, etc. Whether refusal to show one's face for a drivers' license photo is a damn good reason is ... a damn good question.

[minty green]

Originally posted by elucidator
For all you and I know, her religious convictions are sincere and her need to drive compelling, no evidence has been offered otherwise.I have never questioned the sincerity of her beliefs. In fact, I unreservedly accept that she believes exactly what she says she believes.

This is not a question of whether Mrs. Freeman has a compelling need to drive a motor vehicle. The issue is whether the State of Florida can validly require all of its drivers to submit to a facial photograph as a requirement to obtain a driver's license. The state has a compelling need to be able to quickly and accurately identify drivers in any number of common circumstances related to the operation of motor vehicles. Facial photos are a simple, efficient, and accurate means of establishing the driver's identity. A driver's license without a photo is essentially worthless as a means of identification. Given those facts, I see no reason whatsoever to question the validity of this eminently reasonable requirement.

[Collounsbury]

In regards to the sincerity of her beliefs, whether she is sincere or not I think is unjudgeable.

What one can say is that her interpretation of her rights is also far outside of the standards of Muslims generally. I recall in Egypt several years ago there was a tiff when a few of the extreme Saudi style muhajabat who wear the niqab (face veil) complained about picture ident. Muslim Brotherhood itself didn't support them.

She's an embarrassment.

[blanx]

elucidator- how do you respond to the argument that she's a hazard, because of no peripheral vision with that thing on?

[Mercury]

Why not just put her mug shot on the licence? That can be done, right? Or move to PA, where we can, indeed, obtain a DL without a photo.

-M

[fatmac98]

Originally posted by minty green

Rastafarians don't get a special dispensation to smoke weed. Pseudo-Mormon fundamentalists don't get to marry 12-year-old girls. The Amish don't get to drive their horse carts on the roads of Pennsylvana without reflectors on the rear. And by god, Sultanna Freeman can either put her mug on her driver's license or she can take the fucking bus.

Dammit, I wish I could have written this better, but I can't so I will just repeat it.

The DL is a de facto form of identification. Enough with the fingerprint shit, etc. DLs are needed to drive, drink/purchase alcohol, write checks, get on airplanes etc.

Yes, tlw they were not intended to serve that purpose as you have pointed out earlier, maybe they do not legally serve those purposes, or maybe you do not want them to serve those purposes, but they do.

States that do not require a photo ID, should require a photo ID.

I cannot believe that the court os seriously thinking about letting this dirty bitch (before you label me a bigot, she is not a dirty bitch b/c she is Muslim, she is a dirty bitch b/c she abused foster kids), drive a car etc. without a PICTURE ID.

[ivylass]

The trial is expected to wrap up today, but you can bet whoever loses is going to appeal. This may go all the way to the Supreme Court.

I'm worried about where this may lead. If an exception is made for her, what exception is next?

Florida law requires a full-face photo. An Islamic expert testified (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-locveil29052903may29,0,5951260.story?coll=orl%2Dhome%2Dheadlines) that she should take off the veil for the photo.

[Wartime Consigliori]

I've been following this case intently. Folks in this thread have raised good points on both sides of coin.

Having said all that, this is how the case boils down for me: This woman isn't really trying to secure some sort of noble victory for the cause of religious and social liberty; she's just being a big pain in everybody's collective ass. This shit is frivilous in the grand scheme of things.

[Wartime Consigliori]

Besides, this lady apparently has some other issues in her life that she better get sorted out, even beyond the fact t

http://www.wftv.com/news/2233702/detail.html

[Wartime Consigliori]

to continue- even beyond the fact that she is a convicted child abuser.

[World Eater]

After seeing that mugshot, she ought to keep that fucking vail on, it's doing us all a favor.

<rimshot>

[Wartime Consigliori]

Originally posted by World Eater
After seeing that mugshot, she ought to keep that fucking vail on, it's doing us all a favor.

<rimshot>

Henny Youngman! I thought you was dead! What, no one-liner about how much her husband looks like Samuel L. Jackson after a lost weekend? :D

Seriously, though, from the article I linked it seems somewhat probable that there is or has been some domestic violence occurring in their household. In the words of Daffy Duck, "Hmmm...sumphtins amiss here".

[JohnBckWLD]

Not that I'm all that hip on the Feds using State issued driver license photos as a law enforcement tool...

But....

If Ms. Freeman perseveres and ends up winning, here's what I imagine would be the FBI's biggest nightmare (http://public.fotki.com/johnbuckliny/farks/fbi_masks.html)

[World Eater]

Originally posted by JohnBckWLD
Not that I'm all that hip on the Feds using State issued driver license photos as a law enforcement tool...

But....

If Ms. Freeman perseveres and ends up winning, here's what I imagine would be the FBI's biggest nightmare (http://public.fotki.com/johnbuckliny/farks/fbi_masks.html)

Hehe, yep, that's about right.

[butter pie]

If she gets a license without a picture, I want one too. And everyone else that wants a license without a picture should be able to get one.

Actually, I want to get me one of those masks. Maybe a Mardi Gras thing...

I don't see why she gets an exception just because she's a Muslim.

[TeaElle]

Originally posted by fatmac98
Dammit, I wish I could have written this better, but I can't so I will just repeat it.

The DL is a de facto form of identification. Enough with the fingerprint shit, etc. DLs are needed to drive, drink/purchase alcohol, write checks, get on airplanes etc.

It is possible to live without displaying one's driver's license. The only time I've used my license in the last two or three years was at the airport. But there are plenty of people who do not fly. Mrs. Freeman may be one of them. As a devout Muslim, she will not be purchasing alcohol. She can choose - as I have - to avoid writing checks in stores (mainly because its a big pain in the butt) and instead conduct her transactions with cash or with debit/credit cards.

It is much easier to live without ever needing to provide a driver's license to someone as a form of identification than it is to live without being able to drive.

Originally posted by fatmac98
Yes, tlw they were not intended to serve that purpose as you have pointed out earlier, maybe they do not legally serve those purposes, or maybe you do not want them to serve those purposes, but they do.

States that do not require a photo ID, should require a photo ID.

Why? State a legitimate reason that goes beyond "I think so". For someone who doesn't write checks, fly or buy booze, who is served by a requirement of a photo ID except for the police, who could be served through other means of identification and have protocols in place for dealing with those who lack DLs to begin with?

Let's approach this from another angle. if the face covering in Mrs. Freeman's brand of Islam is anything like the hair covering in Orthodox Judaism (which is the closest data point I have for comparison) then even if she acquieses to state demands for a photo, she will only unveil publicly in the presence of close family members or other women. The photograph would have to be taken in a private space, and by a woman.

Then there will be a license which won't be useful for identification for things like writing a check or flying because it will feature a picture that she could not show to anyone except the aforementioned close family members or other women, and even if she did, it would show her full face and she'd be veiled, so there would be no way to know whose license she was presenting.

That means that the only use for her license is for official identification in the case of a traffic stop. But if she's stopped in public, she won't unveil. She'll only do it in a private space, and again, not in front of a man. She'd have to be taken into the police station one way or another. At the police station, they could...

... take her bloody thumbprint.

All of which only matters if she's been pulled over or involved in some kind of traffic incident to begin with.

As for that WFTV article, the most important passage is as follows:

The judge is not going to consider the Freemans' criminal records or accusations in this case. She's focusing on their right to religious freedom and whether taking off her veil is a great burden in practicing her religion.

Meaning -- all of these personal asides have nothing to do with this case and the court is rightly ignoring them. We, the media and the intrusive, judgmental public will, however, use this (limited) information to decimate this woman publicly (dirty bitch?!) because she has dared to exercise one of her fundamentally enumerated rights -- petitioning her government for the redress of a complaint.

You know, because what happens in her household has so so much to do with her ability to legally drive in the state of Florida.

So so so much drama. So so so so little reason. :rolleyes:

[minty green]

Why? State a legitimate reason that goes beyond "I think so". For someone who doesn't write checks, fly or buy booze, who is served by a requirement of a photo ID except for the police, who could be served through other means of identification and have protocols in place for dealing with those who lack DLs to begin with?Nope, that turd won't levitate. Despite the insistence of fatmac98, the ugly childbeater behind the mask is not asking for a means of identification. She's asking for a driver's license. And while the police may have "protocols" for identifying drivers who do not have identification capable of immediately proving the identity of the driver, the state is under no obligation whatsoever to waste its resources in manpower and money to accommodate a citizen who prefers to remain hidden.

I have to show my face if I want a license. You have to show your face if you want a license. Sultanna Freeman has to show her face if she wants a license.

[elucidator]

Piffle. We make exceptions, and exemptions, all the time, for all kinds of reasons. Of all of these, reasons of religion are, most likely, right up there at the top.

Seems to me there is considerable ire being focused on this woman for reasons that escape me. Again, I say, big hairy ass deal. Let the woman drive. You can even put her on special double secret probation: if she screws up and can't be identified, she must leave her car by the side of the road or have it towed.

But if she can drive safely and responsibly, such that she might never have occassion to show her license to a cop, I simply don't see what harm is being done, to either the majesty of the law or the safety of the Republic.

[Una Persson]

Funny that I've never seen you once argue this:

The law is a human institution, and subject to humane limitations, and generous interpretation. If your case rests entirely on a somewhat anal insistence that no exceptions be made, it is a poor thing indeed. Machinery is adamant and unyielding, I see no reason why we should emulate that.

or this:

Piffle. We make exceptions, and exemptions, all the time, for all kinds of reasons. Of all of these, reasons of religion are, most likely, right up there at the top.

in opposition to gun control laws. I guess if it's not a pet cause, then we don't want to try to make exceptions any way we can, right?

Do you also support the right of Sikhs to carry their ceremonial knives into public - even schools? I think the Canadians here could provide you with a few links. At least that aspect of their beliefs is somewhat mainstream for their religion. And they don't "hurt" anyone by doing it, right? Didn't you say that "Pretty much anything that does no harm is ok" with you?

What if my religion strictly mandates that my body is a Holy Temple, and to protect that temple from being profaned by males, I must have a concealed handgun on me at all times - after all, look at how many women are raped or sexually abused each day. Surely you will be at the forefront arguing that I should be able to have an "exception" made for me so my religion is not offended. Hell, you can even put me on "double secret probation" - if I shoot a male on accident because he looked at me wrong, you can make me put the safety on.

*Surely* it can do no harm to respect my religious beliefs by allowing me my P85 at all times in all places. There is no compelling reason of the State to disarm me and trample their hobnailed jackboots all over my very SOUL by taking my only defense of my chaste virgin body away from me. In fact, gun control legislation amounts to little more than State-organized hate crimes against me and the other followers of my religion (which are legion).

Bleh. That much sarcasm in the morning can't be good for me.

No one here has posted a link to any exception made previously in a photo ID for a State drivers license which allows the level of face covering that this person wants. The head covering which Menonites and Jews wear is not a valid comparison, nor is the turban of a Sikh. She has little to no religious precedent to stand on, and it is clear that she is nothing but a whiny narcissistic legal-happy (ironically) bitch who has obviously sold her cause to the target audience of the perpetually offended and terminally "oppressed". :rolleyes:

[blanx]

elucidator- you didn't answer my question about the peripheral vision thing... well?

[minty green]

Originally posted by elucidator
We make exceptions, and exemptions, all the time, for all kinds of reasons. Of all of these, reasons of religion are, most likely, right up there at the top.Um, actually, we generally don't make all kinds of "exceptions and exemptions" for generally applicable laws based on individuals' religious beliefs. Would you care to identify the ones you have in mind?

Note also that it matters who is making the exception. It's one thing for the legislative branch to decide that a generally-applicable regulation can give way in the face of a person's religious beliefs; it's another thing entirely for the courts to decide that a generally-applicable law must give way in the face of a person's religious beliefs.

[Gorgon Heap]

it's another thing entirely for the courts to decide that a generally-applicable law must give way in the face of a person's religious beliefs.

Right, minty. It would, in effect, nullify it as a "generally applicable" law. As you mantioned earlier, making the exemption would require lawmakers to go back to the books and create tailor-made laws for each individual religion when what they have been trying to do is simply establish parity among citizens before the eyes of the courts.




Personally, I'm all for "fighting the man," but hell, if she's a good driver nobody's going to see the picture anyway.

[deball]

This really has nothing to contribute to the argument except as an aside.

I'm looking at a genuine current Florida Driver's License without a photo at this very minute. The man it belongs to is military and is stationed very far away from his home state, FLA. The picture box is blank except for the words "VALID WITHOUT PHOTO AND SIGNATURE." It was issued to him as a replacement to his expired one, and that one had a photo. So, he did at one point have to get a photo taken, but now he does not. He does not have to carry the old one with this, and it didn't come with any rules that he had to have a new ID, etc. How this applies to the current debate, I'm not sure, but FLA does have a legitimate drivers license without photo.

[/Aside]

[CrazyCatLady]

Well, I look at it this way. In the state of Kentucky, when I renew my license, I have to sign a paper stating that I have not had a seizure for over 3 years. If I have had a seizure within that time frame, regardless of the circumstances, I have to have my doctor fill out 4 pages of paperwork concerning my medical history. I have the option of not releasing this information, but doing so means that my license will be suspended and not reinstated until said paperwork is in and reviewed and I pay $60 for reinstatement. Nobody gives a fuck if I have a pressing need to drive or not; the law is the law. Many states have similar laws.

Driving legally isn't a right, it's a privilege, and it's one I have to either lie or give up some of my privacy to obtain. Yes, it's unfair that people with histories of strokes and heart attacks don't have to go through the same rigamarole (they're equally likely to become incapacitated while driving and cause an accident). Yes, it's a giant pain in my dainty, dimpled rear end. Boo-fucking-hoo.

I have a choice; keep my medical information private, or drive. Mrs. Freeman has a choice: keep her face covered, or drive. Sometimes life gives us unpleasant choices, and we can either kick our heels and scream about how much it sucks, or we can grow the fuck up, make our choice, and live with the consequences.

[elucidator]

blanx - Sorry, did not mean to seem to ignore you. Of course, any issue as regards safe operation of the vehicle is valid. I wouldn't permit a blind man to drive a car, regardless of the sincerity of his religious convictions.

Anthracite - I am somewhat taken aback that you seem to imply some hypocrisy on my part as regards my fervent campaign for gun control. Not least because I'm not that big on the issue. Perhaps you have me confused with some other wimp-ass lefty. We all think alike, after all.

Truth be known, I'm rather fond of rifles, having spent many a happy hour plinking beer cans with a well-sighted .22. (What we used to call knocking the "P" out of Pearl.....its a Texas thing, you wouldn't understand....) Personally, I loathe handguns and despise the brutal machismo I associate with them. That, also, is likely a result of my childhood. Seems like almost every other day some damnfool was getting shot over nothing in the Dew Drop Inn or the It'll Do Lounge. They are devices for no other purpose but injuring people. Fuck 'em, fuck 'em all, every last one. As to any religious issue regarding them, I'll take that as a given until offered convincing evidence that Jesus packs heat, or Gandhi kept a neat little Baretta under his dhoti.

To the issue at hand: I just think that if a concession can be made for someones religious beliefs, and that concession can be held harmless to the public at large, why the hell not? Call it the "Whats the Big Hairy Ass Deal?" Principle.

As to Minty's question about concessions made to religion, well, of course. My cousin tried to apply for conscientious objector status in the Bad Old Days, and was denied due to unseemly honesty in admitting agnosticism. And, of course, minor concessions are made to permit the Amish to live comfortably amongst thier neighbors. And why the hell not?

[Una Persson]

elucidator: The points I'm trying to make are thus:

1) "Reasonable accomodation for religion" is in the eye of the beholder. I was trying to use a specious example to show that there are lots of reasons why not to make examples. My example may be specious, but what if it wasn't? What if a sect of man-hating lesbians decided to form a religion based on the concept that man is an "abomination", and to protect ourselves from men, our Holy Temples must be defended at all times by weapons? Assuming we're all law-abiding citizens with no criminal past, should we nonetheless be able to force the State into giving us all consideration for carrying concealed weapons at all times? Most would say "nay", but some would say "sure" - as in the case of Freeman. But does it serve the greater good of humanity and the safety and security of the State to do this?

Is Freeman a danger to the safety and security of the State? Herself, probably not, but the precedent which she could set would be dangerous.

2) Having the law be a flexible institution with the ability to make exceptions and exemptions is nice, but hard to put into practice. Especially because there are many areas where reasonable people are going to disagree on the level of exception and exemption to be made. From looking at the posts of yours and others in gun control debates, it is logical to say that you would be much less likely to make exceptions and exemptions for me on that issue than for others (Sultaana Freeman, for one) on other issues. But where, what topic, and the level of exception and exemption is one on which "reasonable people" seem to be more heavily weighted against both me (on one issue) and Freeman (on another issue).

3) Freeman clearly appears to be trying to push the limit of State accomodation for religion by adopting a practice of a religion which is not shared by many, seems contrary to the stated State goal of positive identification of holders of drivers licenses, and could be interpreted to allow for a wide level of further exemption, such as the person who wants to wear clown makeup for their photo, or the person who wishes to submit a hand-drawn picture of themselves in lieu of a photo. Or a person who believes that the camera will steal their soul, etc.

4) Refusing to make allowances for several aspects of even established, mainstream religion in government functions has precedent. Sikhs are not allowed to carry their knives into public schools, courthouses, nor into secured areas of airports. The State has a precedent for imposing reasonable restrictions on religious practice. And I imagine that if and when Freeman ends up in jail/prison, she will not be allowed to disguise herself with a veil out of concern for her religion.

I fully support what minty has said in here on the legal aspects of it.

[elucidator]

"...I guess if it's not a pet cause, then we don't want to try to make exceptions any way we can, right?"

Well, sorry if I misunderstood, but this context does seem a wee bit personal.

[Una Persson]

Everyone has one or many "pet cause(s)" which they favour. I do. You do. Minty does. Cecil does. This aspect of human nature should hardly be a surprise. And I've not seen you make the same impassioned argument as you have here for exceptions and exemptions in the case of gun control laws, or in the case of any other causes which you have stated strong personal opposition towards. Of course I'm often wrong about things, but if you had, I would have expected a link or three by now clearing up my misperceptions.

I'm not going to be played like a chump and actually put effort into trying to make detailed responses so you can fire back at me with one-liners and ignore what I and others say. That's not even a pretense at intelligent and meaningful discussion, and in another forum would be called trolling. Therefore, our conversation, as it was, is over now.

[elucidator]

Now that's hardly fair, Anthracite.

I'm not "impassioned" about Ms. Freeman's case in the slightest, as I think I've made clear, my stance is mostly "What the hell, let her drive, if it ain't going to hurt anybody".

If there is any strong feeling attendent to this, it is my feeling that the law should fit the people, not vice versa. You are, of course, free to argue otherwise, but I fail to see what my stance on gun control has to do with this. Now, I can't actually prove this, but I don't really think I've had that much to say about gun control on these boards. Hence my sincere suggestion that you may have me confused with some other brilliant and pithy lefty. There are several, you know.

And, of course, I came nowhere near suggesting that clown makeup and hand drawn pictures might be substituted, etc. If you're going to contradict me, at least contradict something I actually said.

Now, if you're still determined to stomp off and slam the door, be my guest. If, at some future date, you think better of it, I will be perfectly happy to pretend it never happened.

[SPOOFE]

Piffle. We make exceptions, and exemptions, all the time, for all kinds of reasons. Of all of these, reasons of religion are, most likely, right up there at the top.
So that means we should ALWAYS make exceptions for ANY reason?

Bullshit, Lucy. "It's my religion!" is not some sort of all-powerful means of getting out of a requirement. Fact: She has no inherent right to drive. Ergo, the State is perfectly within its right to refuse someone a privilege if they don't abide by the rules. It's very, very simple.

I'm not "impassioned" about Ms. Freeman's case in the slightest
Uh-huh. That's why you just shrugged your shoulders and left the thread the second someone disagreed with you, huh?

If there is any strong feeling attendent to this, it is my feeling that the law should fit the people, not vice versa.
So... if the majority of the people decided that "Murder is fun!", laws that disallow that act should be repealed?

Doesn't fly, Chuckles.

[elucidator]

So that means we should ALWAYS make exceptions for ANY reason?

Not perzackly. But I think you probably already know that.

Bullshit, Lucy. "It's my religion!" is not some sort of all-powerful means of getting out of a requirement. Fact: She has no inherent right to drive. Ergo, the State is perfectly within its right to refuse someone a privilege if they don't abide by the rules. It's very, very simple.

Of course, the State has the right, thats why its the State. I merely suggest that if the State can accomodate a religious exemption without undue threat or danger, it should make a good faith effort. If this should prove too difficult, no harm done. Just as you say, its quite simple. Your grasp of the obvious is an inspiration to us all.

Uh-huh. That's why you just shrugged your shoulders and left the thread the second someone disagreed with you, huh?
I have no idea what your talking about here. Does that make two of us?
So... if the majority of the people decided that "Murder is fun!", laws that disallow that act should be repealed?

Might be best if you step away from the computer and lie down for a while. This sort of ankle-biting can be very tiring.

[SPOOFE]

Not perzackly. But I think you probably already know that.
Then why'd you bring up the fact that, every now and then, an exception is made? Are you just admiring your own text?

Of course, the State has the right, thats why its the State. I merely suggest that if the State can accomodate a religious exemption without undue threat or danger, it should make a good faith effort.
Why does "undue threat or danger" come into play? She's asking the State to inconvenience itself for no reason. It is HER choice to maintain her supposed religious views. If this means that she can't qualify for receiving a driver's license, then she's just shit out of luck.

If this should prove too difficult, no harm done. Just as you say, its quite simple. Your grasp of the obvious is an inspiration to us all.
The problem is, Lucy, that your ruby-glasses view of the situation is anything BUT simple. Instead of an objective set of rules to apply to everyone, you're asking for subjective analysis of individual situations... which inherently leads to discrimination. What about religions that believe that there is no Self? Should they be accomodated, too, by not requiring them to have a driver's license at all? Certainly there's a point where there's a cutoff... I'm merely pointing out that the cutoff point be a tad higher than you would have it, so as to avoid a larger number of subjectivities.

I have no idea what your talking about here. Does that make two of us?
Someone that's "not impassioned" about something "in the slightest" wouldn't care enough to pursue that subject as fervently as you have. You certainly do seem to use the "I don't care" excuse a whole lot to excuse your mindless drivel.

Might be best if you step away from the computer and lie down for a while. This sort of ankle-biting can be very tiring.
Don't dodge the question. You claimed that the law needs to accomodate the people, not the other way around. My scenario was a logical extension of that claim. Are you now claiming that people need to alter their behavior to fit the law, contrary to what you previously claimed? Will you admit that, perhaps, you spoke in haste?

[elucidator]

Nope. Just saying, if it ain't a big deal, it ain't a big deal. Clearly, that principle can be taken to absurd lengths, as you are eager to point out. Clearly, you think this is such. I don't. Thats really about it. You say mountain, I say molehill.

[TeaElle]

Originally posted by CrazyCatLady
I have a choice; keep my medical information private, or drive. Mrs. Freeman has a choice: keep her face covered, or drive. Sometimes life gives us unpleasant choices, and we can either kick our heels and scream about how much it sucks, or we can grow the fuck up, make our choice, and live with the consequences.

Apples, oranges, meaningless analogies ahoy!

Your medical condition, personal as it may be to you, could have serious ramifications on a number of people should you have a seizure while behind the wheel, you know that.

But there ain't a soul on the planet who could be affected if the driver's license in Sultana Freeman's wallet doesn't have a picture of her unveiled face on it.

Originally posted by SPOOFE
Ergo, the State is perfectly within its right to refuse someone a privilege if they don't abide by the rules. It's very, very simple.

No one is questioning that the state can refuse to grant a license to someone who doesn't abide by their rules.

What is being questioned is how best to deal with a the conflict when someone has a compelling reason to not abide by a rule:
a.) which the state's own procedures (see dabell's post) and procedures of other states don't even mandate as absolutely, unflinchingly necessary and
b.) for which the state's rationale is vague, at best and onerous at worst.

I believe that those of who are arguing against Florida's position are probably assessing this situation thusly: allowing Mrs. Freeman an exemption due to her special circumstances (especially granted the fundamental protection given to the underlying cause of those circumstances) would cause no harm herself or to the public at large. It would cause a certain level of inconvenience and effort to law enforcement in the event she were involved in a traffic stop or accident which required law enforcement assistance, neither of which are inevitable by any means.

Weighing the limited nature of the problem that an exemption might cause against the fact that Mrs. Freeman considers her stance to be predicated upon the exercise of one of her most essential and unimpeachable liberties, one must come to a conclusion that one carries more weight and is more compelling than the other.

The free exercise of the personal faith of a citizen, undertaken in any fashion which does not pose a danger to others is a fundamental, top of the list, unquestioned right. No where is that right to exercise limited to what some authority on that faith says, or the opinion of the public. On the other hand, the right of the state and agents thereof to avoid potential inconveniences is not protected anywhere that I can find.

As for other scenarios, we could argue about scenarios until all of our fingers fall off. We could even go on at length about numerous other cases in which religious practice and public policy have clashed, but this case is specifically about Sultana Freeman and her driver's license. She isn't asking to wear a Sikh dagger in a school or commit sacrifices in her backyard, and if the court rules in her favor, it would not mean that suddenly others could carry religious weaponry unfettered or kill chickens under the full moon. If some other person wishes to change laws or regulations regarding those practices, those cases should be weighed on their own individual merits, just as Mrs. Freeman's case should be weighed on its own, individual merits.

[elucidator]

trw has stated the case better than I. Kindly direct your ire in his direction, as he/she/it has the temerity to be succinct, intelligent and, uh, lucid.

[Typo Negative]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tlw
[B] IMO, the states that don't have pictures on the DL's should start putting pictures on their DL's.

How would you like to be involved in an accident with someone who could not show evidence of their identity or legal permission to drive?

[factoryrat]

i could care less if my license has a picture on it or not. do you think it will make a difference if your stopped for d.u.i what your picture on your license looks like. your probably going to jail anyhow.

[Evil Captor]

When people say that driving is a privilege, they are saying that basically all the power in regard to driving belongs to the state -- if the state says no one can drive, no one can drive. We can only petition humbly for those privileges which the state may deign to grant us in regard to driving, and hope they will be given to us. If the state administers the rules and regulations wrt driving badly, we have no right to complain, because after all, we are only whining about a privilege we want bestowed on us, not seeking a fundamental right.

I say driving is a right. We all have the right to drive a car. Because driving is such a dangerous thing, we agree to make the exercise of that right conditional on things like being able to pass a reasonable exam showing one has the basic skills to do so safely, sufficient visual acuity to do so safely, etc.

Still, it's our inherent right to drive, and if the state fails or abrogates its responsibility to administer the limitations we have agreed to place on the right to drive, then we can still drive until such time as we can get the state straightened out about its responsibilties in this respect.

WRT Sultana's veil, I would say if she can drive safely, let her. If there is a need for a national ID card with photo ID included and maybe fingerprints as well, let our elected representatives pass such a bill into law. If we don't like that, we can always toss the bastids out and elect new ones.

[Typo Negative]

Originally posted by factoryrat
i could care less if my license has a picture on it or not. do you think it will make a difference if your stopped for d.u.i what your picture on your license looks like. your probably going to jail anyhow. But if someone is stopped for speeding in your car and has your liscense with no picture on it, the cop will probably just write a ticket rather than starting the investigation as to where you are and why this person has your car and ID.

[Stonebow]

Originally posted by Evil Captor
When people say that driving is a privilege, they are saying that basically all the power in regard to driving belongs to the state -- if the state says no one can drive, no one can drive.

I say driving is a right. We all have the right to drive a car.

You are correct- driving is a right...on your own private property. The problem comes when you decide to drive on public roads. I suppose the proper rebuttal to the lady in question would be 'driving on public highways is a privilege, not a right'...but everyone here's been using the short form.

[Munch]

So far, we've had people say that a photo ID is required by Florida law for issuance of a driver's license, and people who say that permanent non-photo DLs are issued by Florida.

Which is it? And do we have a link/cite?

[factoryrat]

hey spooje explain to me how someone "got" my car and "got" my license also? your jumping to a lot of conclusions.

[Typo Negative]

Originally posted by factoryrat
hey spooje explain to me how someone "got" my car and "got" my license also? your jumping to a lot of conclusions. Maybe by putting a bullet in your head and dumping your body in the fucking trunk. Not an uncommon occurence here in the big cities. Don't you ever watch Law and Order?

[ivylass]

I didn't notice it in this thread, but the judge has ruled that Sultaana Freeman must remove her veil for her photo. The judge said that having a woman take the photo was not a violation of Freeman's rights, and that the state has a compelling interest in making speedy identifications.

The ruling is expected to be appealed.