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.
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.
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).
[sub]Bleh. That much sarcasm in the morning can’t be good for me.[/sub]
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
elucidator: The points I’m trying to make are thus:
“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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Uh-huh. That’s why you just shrugged your shoulders and left the thread the second someone disagreed with you, huh?
So… if the majority of the people decided that “Murder is fun!”, laws that disallow that act should be repealed?
Not perzackly. But I think you probably already know that.
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.
I have no idea what your talking about here. Does that make two of us?
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.
Then why’d you bring up the fact that, every now and then, an exception is made? Are you just admiring your own text?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.