But that’s what confused me. From the OP’s link:
I’d like to know how the cancellation of a driving license violates her rights to privacy and freedom of speech?
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.
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?
Because her complaint has everything to do with her right to be treated equally to other applicants by the governmental entity concerned.
But other candidates have to have aun uncovered photo on their licenses, so surely she is being treated equally?
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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;[ul][li]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.[/ul][/li]
If we carry your gay prom date argument (which I don’t oppose) to its’ next logical step[ul][li]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.[/ul][/li]
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.
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.
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?”
Why doesn’t Florida tell them to fuck off using the privilege not a right argument?
They said a thread could not be resurrected from the dead, but look Igor - it lives…IT LIVES!
Update from today’s Chicago Tribune (requires registration):
Hmm, possibly another reason why she wants to keep her face covered:
Unfortunately, the judge in FL has decided not to use the above info in making her decision.
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
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?
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?
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.