::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.
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.)
That was, of course, a reply to elucidator, not Anthractite.
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.
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.
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.
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.
elucidator- how do you respond to the argument that she’s a hazard, because of no peripheral vision with that thing on?
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
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.
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 that she should take off the veil for the photo.
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.
Besides, this lady apparently has some other issues in her life that she better get sorted out, even beyond the fact t
to continue- even beyond the fact that she is a convicted child abuser.
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? 
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”.
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
Hehe, yep, that’s about right.
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.
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.
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:
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: