JFTR, Maryland does the profile photo for under-21 drivers. I always thought it made age verification easier for liquor and tobacco purchasing.
Monty has a habit of calling poeple liars when backed into a corner. Ignore it, it’s an admssion of sorts.
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:
[ul][li]minty: I didn’t attack you.[/li][li]wring: Does that suffice as an apology?[/li]gobear: I don’t need lithium. Read the follow-on post next time, just like I shall![/ul]
You can see how I might be a wee bit confused here, I hope?
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.
I’m cool. And it saves me the trouble of looking up all those Free Exercise cases on Findlaw.
Tranq: You err.
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?
Fair enough! Like I said, I like y’all.
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?
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.
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.
Maybe Sable’s solution is to have a genitalia snapshot in lieu of a face picture on the driver’s license
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?
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.
I think the woman should take the bus.
A NYT article on this subject contained the following :
Here’s a link you may need to register to see it though.
I’m confused - when did driving become a right?
Upon further review, 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. 
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.