Muslim woman sues to wear veil in driver's license photo

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...p/license_veil

Quote:

---

ORLANDO, Fla. - Granting a Muslim woman the right to keep her face veiled for her driver's license photo could allow potential terrorists to hide their identities, attorneys for the state of Florida argued Thursday.

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com...nse_dob106.jpg

Attorneys made closing arguments in the lawsuit filed by Sultaana Freeman, who contends the state's refusal to allow her to remain veiled for her license photo violates her religious freedom.

"This court cannot make this decision in a legal vacuum. The sad fact is our country, our society, is under assault by puritanical religious zealots," said Assistant Attorney General Jason Vail. "If you hold for the plaintiff, someday a man will present himself to a driver's license office and demand a driver's license without a photo based upon his religious conviction.

"We may have to give it to him but we will not know if his objectives are sincere and peaceful or if they're terrible until it is too late," Vail said.

Freeman's lawyers told Circuit Judge Janet Thorpe that state officials objected to their client's face being covered only after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, an allegation the state denies.

Freeman, 35, had a Florida license that showed her veiled, with only her eyes visible, but the state revoked it after several months when she refused to have her picture taken without the head covering.

"She wants to drive. She needs to drive to take care of family needs," said Howard Marks, an American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) attorney representing Freeman. "But she isn't going to violate a fundamental religious belief."

After the hearing, Freeman complained that without a license, she can't even drive to the store to buy diapers for her 6-month-old son.

"It's just little things like that," she said. "I veil to obey my Lord. It's an act of modesty. It reduces issues of vanity."

Vail argued that having an easily identifiable photo on a license is a matter of public safety because it is used during traffic stops and for business transactions.

He also said Islamic law has exceptions that allow women to expose their faces if it serves a public good, and that arrangements could be made to have Freeman photographed with only women present to allay her concerns about modesty.

Thorpe said she would rule on the case by next week.

---

This is some stupid shit. She should NOT be allowed to look like a ninja in her freaking driver's license photo!! Freedom of religion, my ass.

But, if you were an underage chick and had an older Muslim friend with a veiled ID photo, it sure would make borrowing her ID to get into bars a hell of a lot easier. :)

Driving is a privilege, not a fundamental right. She can adhere to her religious beliefs by choosing not to drive.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dolemite
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...p/license_veil
But, if you were an underage chick and had an older Muslim friend with a veiled ID photo, it sure would make borrowing her ID to get into bars a hell of a lot easier. :)

---

If you were willing to wear a veil into a bar.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by burgundy
If you were willing to wear a veil into a bar.

---

Eh, just take it off once you get in the door.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by burgundy
Driving is a privilege, not a fundamental right. She can adhere to her religious beliefs by choosing not to drive.

---

Well put.

One word: deportation. Assimilate or get the fuck out.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dolemite
Eh, just take it off once you get in the door.

---

If I ran the bar, I wouldn't let in anyone with a veil or a veiled ID.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Yoshi
One word: deportation. Assimilate or get the fuck out.

---

Deportation has nothing to do with it. We don't live in a police state where veils are prohibited, despite John Ashcroft's wildest fantasies. If she wishes to have the privilege of driving on state-owned roads, she has to comply with the state's rules. Otherwise she can keep her veil and take the bus.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Yoshi
One word: deportation. Assimilate or get the fuck out.

---

Take it to Fight Club. ~ burg

I understand the importance of religious freedom, but, obviously, wearing a veil in your driver's license photo can't be acceptable.

PS agree with Burgundy there.
She should be identifyable on her ID, if she wants to drive with a veil on fine but she should be identifyable on her ID and should make her face seen when pulled over.

Heheh, backpedaling in real-time. Remember that not all conservatives feel the way Yoshi does - there are quite a lot of pro-immigration conservatives, and a lot of people wary about immigration who still wouldn't say something stupid like that.

I guess a stronger argument in this plaintiff's favor is that, although a license is required nominally only to drive, in practice, you really can't do anything in this country without some sort of photo ID. Photo ID is funny like that - there's no law that says you have to have one, but you can't get very far without one. I think she would have a stronger argument if she applied for a passport, for example, despite the fact that a photo-less passport would be a much bigger security threat.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
Heheh, backpedaling in real-time. Remember that not all conservatives feel the way Yoshi does - there are quite a lot of pro-immigration conservatives, and a lot of people wary about immigration who still wouldn't say something stupid like that.

---

I'm proud to say that I made a vastly different point than Yoshi.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
Heheh, backpedaling in real-time. Remember that not all conservatives feel the way Yoshi does - there are quite a lot of pro-immigration conservatives, and a lot of people wary about immigration who still wouldn't say something stupid like that.

---

Backpeddling?
No.
I hadnt seen Burgundy´s post before I posted my response, I sw his after I hit reply and then reacted to that.

What good is identification if people can't actually use it to identify you?

Yoshi on more instances then a dozen has made obvious his total disregard for humanity.

PS Stone why didnt we meet up in NYc as requested by me several times?

http://forums.gaming-age.com/showthr...threadid=38585

Driver’s identification rules in Muslim nations:

Saudi Arabia: Women aren't allowed to drive

Iran: Women wear a traditional Shadour, which does not cover the face.

Egypt: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures

United Arab Emirates: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures

Oman: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures

Kuwait: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures

Qatar: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures

Bahrain: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures

Jordan: Women can drive if their faces are covered but do not cover their face in I.D. pictures

That says it all. Full face picture, or she doesn't drive.

Leave it to Matt to lay down some quality facts.

"He also said Islamic law has exceptions that allow women to expose their faces if it serves a public good, and that arrangements could be made to have Freeman photographed with only women present to allay her concerns about modesty."

What the hell is wrong with this lady? They are going to be sensitive to her needs and she still pulls this (I'm assuming they gave her this choice already). Veil off woman!

She should lose the veil if only for the DL picture. If she hides her face, that's defeating the purpose of that and it is not fair to everyone else who has to have their face plastered all over their DL.

I feel that having her picture on the DL does serve the "public good".

VEIL OFF!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MVS
http://forums.gaming-age.com/showthr...threadid=38585

Driver’s identification rules in Muslim nations:

Saudi Arabia: Women aren't allowed to drive

Iran: Women wear a traditional Shadour, which does not cover the face.

Egypt: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures

United Arab Emirates: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures

Oman: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures

Kuwait: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures

Qatar: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures

Bahrain: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures

Jordan: Women can drive if their faces are covered but do not cover their face in I.D. pictures

That says it all. Full face picture, or she doesn't drive.

---

if that's how it is elsewhere, I would think that would settle the debate here.

Well, it'd be easy to say to her "if you don't like American laws, go back from whence you came!"... except, the same rules are in effect in those places.

This woman is being a bitch, plain and simple.

Devils advocate: But dude those countries arent democracies,the US is so screw what is and isnt allowed in those countries, if a religion says all toodlers should drive blindfolded the great US of A should provide constitutional protection unlike all those sandnigger countries.

You have to protect the other citizens. That's what all of this boils down to.

"toodlers" and "sandnigger" in the same post!

Take off the veil or don't drive, we shouldn't make a special case for the silly twat.

This is very easily solved, so of course it'll drag on forever- driver's id is for identification. No picture, no id. Simple. But this has been discussed already and everyone is pretty much in agreement on it.

The thing that gets me is that the state falls back on fear or terrorism. Again. Guys, get over it. We had one terrorist attack in the US from insane religious zealots. Count them, one. No veils were used because nobody was stupid enough to try. This isn't about terrorism, it's about a stupid bitch. Stop pretending the boogeyman is at the door with a knife in one paw and a bazooka in the other. It's gotten old and we don't believe you any more.

James

Excellent post James.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Almaci
if a religion says all toodlers should drive blindfolded the great US of A should provide constitutional protection unlike all those sandnigger countries.

---

What the fuck was that?

Any credibility you thought you had just got fucked in the ass.

I think it was sarcasm

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Almaci
Devils advocate: But dude those countries arent democracies,the US is so screw what is and isnt allowed in those countries, if a religion says all toodlers should drive blindfolded the great US of A should provide constitutional protection unlike all those sandnigger countries.

---

But those countries have some authority on the interpretation of Islamic law. You can only base a religious freedom claim on objective and widely-accepted interpretations of religion, not one person's idiosyncratic view.

You make a fair point otherwise.

I know and Melf is an idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by burgundy
You can only base a religious freedom claim on objective and widely-accepted interpretations of religion, not one person's idiosyncratic view.

---

If so, the protection is meaningless.

Driving is a not a right. She has nothing to sue about.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LordPerrin
If so, the protection is meaningless.

---

If not, the protection is all-encompassing and catastrophic. Personal beliefs do not equal religious doctrine. If they did, I would believe in Burgandism, which does not permit the paying of taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Almaci
I know and Melf is an idiot.

---

You both need to calm down.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Almaci
I know and Melf is an idiot.

---

You have extremely poor taste when it comes to humor, as someone with any intelligence wouldn't use such a word even in jest. If calling you on your insensitivity makes me an idiot, then fine.

I think we, as a nation, need to amend the constitution, and add in: The right to sue for really stupid shit and probably win.

I agree that she shouldn't be allowed to wear her veil in her license photo, however they are going about it the wrong way. In the wake of the 9-11 attaks many states immediatly moved to prevent the right to remain veiled in license photos. To suddenly disallow a right that had been afforded them by calling them potential terrorists is self defeating. It comes across as racist and will likely lose this case for the state. They should have never been allowed to wear the veils in the first place however this isn't the time for hindsight. If they make the simple argument that this has more to do with preventing the ID's from being used fraudulantly than terrorism then they'll likely win this case. As for the aforementioned hindsight, well, that's always 20/20.

Nail on head. I think the state should just admit that it was really stupid to permit veiled photos and assert that it has corrected that error. The terrorist threat argument is weak, but it isn't fatal either - it's not like Jews can wear veils but not Muslims. It's just a coincidence that the class of people who are likely to wear veils is also the class from which terrorists are most likely to come.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Almaci
...sandnigger...

---

I hope that was used in jest as a jab at those who would actually use such termanology.:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by James
This is very easily solved, so of course it'll drag on forever- driver's id is for identification. No picture, no id. Simple. But this has been discussed already and everyone is pretty much in agreement on it.

The thing that gets me is that the state falls back on fear or terrorism. Again. Guys, get over it. We had one terrorist attack in the US from insane religious zealots. Count them, one. No veils were used because nobody was stupid enough to try. This isn't about terrorism, it's about a stupid bitch. Stop pretending the boogeyman is at the door with a knife in one paw and a bazooka in the other. It's gotten old and we don't believe you any more.

James

---

My line of thinking was, you can't identify someone just by their eyes, so a veiled ID defeats the function of an ID. Simple as that.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ShineAqua
I hope that was used in jest as a jab at those who would actually use such termanology.:confused:

---

No, more like sarcasm on such a level that would polarize anyone who came within 5 miles of even thinking things Ali didn't think were right.

At least, I hope is was sacasm and he doesn't actually believe all people who don't think like him think like that.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Blame it on a long work day with no real sleep beforehand. Insert the word "identifiable" between "No" and "picture" if you would...

James

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ShineAqua
I hope that was used in jest as a jab at those who would actually use such termanology.:confused:

---

Of course it was, im a Muslim myself and was born in the region(or pretty closeby in turkey)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by burgundy
If not, the protection is all-encompassing and catastrophic. Personal beliefs do not equal religious doctrine. If they did, I would believe in Burgandism, which does not permit the paying of taxes.

---

Wrong. You apply the same basic litmus test as any other protected right: your rights end where they start interfering with someone else's. This prevents ludicrous abuses such as your 'Burgandism' and this woman's idiocy, while at the same time protecting views outside some judge's narrow-minded idea of 'mainstream religion'.

"Hello, Miss DMV employee. I would like to apply for a driver's license. However, I am a believer in Assbackwardsism. Thus, all pictures that are taken of me must really be of my next door neighbor. It is quite clearly spelled out in our holy book, The Moron. If you fail to observe my religious beliefs by taking old Bill's picture, I will be forced to commence legal action. Afterall, the only custom I am willing to follow while I am in America is filing frivolous lawsuits."

I love it when people try to take freedom too far.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LordPerrin
Wrong. You apply the same basic litmus test as any other protected right: your rights end where they start interfering with someone else's. This prevents ludicrous abuses such as your 'Burgandism' and this woman's idiocy, while at the same time protecting views outside some judge's narrow-minded idea of 'mainstream religion'.

---

The only cases that get litigated are the ones where rights are clashing with rights, so your test does no work. The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion, so rights associated with that free exercise are given a relatively higher priority. Religion is not simply in the eye of the beholder, though - a belief has to meet certain qualifications to be held religious and entitled to protection. Personal worldview beliefs and even atheist beliefs generally do not meet that standard.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Yoshi
"Hello, Miss DMV employee. I would like to apply for a driver's license. However, I am a believer in Assbackwardsism. Thus, all pictures that are taken of me must really be of my next door neighbor. It is quite clearly spelled out in our holy book, The Moron. If you fail to observe my religious beliefs by taking old Bill's picture, I will be forced to commence legal action. Afterall, the only custom I am willing to follow while I am in America is filing frivolous lawsuits."

---

:lol: That last bit is gold. I'd go as far as saying that this is sig worthy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Yoshi
"It is quite clearly spelled out in our holy book, The Moron."

---

Hehe - I think I'll add that to my inventory.

As for this case, I hope it just gets thrown out and she pays for every damn penny she's cost the taxpayer and then some. Nice to see the ACLU acting like it cares about religious freedoms in reaction to it. Sucks they can gain some further legitimacy by using shit like this.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NightWolve
Nice to see the ACLU acting like it cares about religious freedoms in reaction to it. Sucks they can gain some further legitimacy by using shit like this.

---

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I don't see the ACLU gaining any legitimacy by backing this case. That said, although this case is ridiculous, I'd rather see some ridiculous cases get dismissed than see the conservative establishment go unchecked. Freedom isn't cheap.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NightWolve Nice to see the ACLU acting like it cares about religious freedoms in reaction to it. Sucks they can gain some further legitimacy by using shit like this.

---

Further legitimacy would require a foundation of legitimacy on which to build. The ACLU is in its very title is a farce. The American Civil Liberties Union should treat every single person the exact same way. It is what they preach, but it is not what they do. If you're not a handicapable, Puerto Rican lesbian, good luck getting support for them. They cater to the lowest common denominator of society, because no self respecting minority would ever associate himself with that circus.

Well, she lost. Judge ruled that she should shut the fuck up and take the veil off for a pic in a private room with a female photographer.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Yoshi
Further legitimacy would require a foundation of legitimacy on which to build. The ACLU is in its very title is a farce. The American Civil Liberties Union should treat every single person the exact same way. It is what they preach, but it is not what they do. If you're not a handicapable, Puerto Rican lesbian, good luck getting support for them. They cater to the lowest common denominator of society, because no self respecting minority would ever associate himself with that circus.

---

So what civil liberties are being deprived of a healthy white heterosexual male as opposed to a handicapped Puerto Rican lesbian?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by burgundy
I don't see the ACLU gaining any legitimacy by backing this case. That said, although this case is ridiculous, I'd rather see some ridiculous cases get dismissed than see the conservative establishment go unchecked. Freedom isn't cheap.

---

I think the ACLU lost almost all of its legitimacy when they decided to support NAMBLA. That said, I think something like the ACLU is absolutely necessary, and if they didnt support NAMBLA, I would have joined the organization without hesitation.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ichabod
So what civil liberties are being deprived of a healthy white heterosexual male as opposed to a handicapped Puerto Rican lesbian?

---

Nail on head. The biggest error that Yoshi is making (I have him on ignore but I can read his post) is that the LCD is indeed what needs the most help, because they will get trampled upon by everybody else. Such is capitalism. The handicapped PR lesbian needs more help because she has a greater chance of getting taken advantage of than Whitey.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Yoshi
Further legitimacy would require a foundation of legitimacy on which to build. The ACLU is in its very title is a farce.

---

Oh, I know - believe me.. Just that, a rep got air-time on MSNBC to discuss the case when I made the post (makes it seem like it's a respectable org). Anyway, good they're supporting NAMBLA which I hope damages them as much as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by diffusionx
I think the ACLU lost almost all of its legitimacy when they decided to support NAMBLA. That said, I think something like the ACLU is absolutely necessary, and if they didnt support NAMBLA, I would have joined the organization without hesitation.

---

I would've preferred the ACLU didn't take the NAMBLA case for publicity reasons (and I would've preferred they didn't take the case in this thread because it's fucking stupid). That said, the lawsuit they were defending NAMBLA in was frivolous. Fry the two sick fucks who did it, by all means, but you can't blame NAMBLA 'cause one of its members killed somebody.

Oh, and for Yoshi: you do realize that the ACLU has defended Neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klan members in the past, right? Doubt there are too many handicapped Peurto Rican lesbians in the KKK.

The ACLU is in existence to fight for the rights of all americans whenever due process was or may be denied. So it shouldn't surprise you that they often take up causes that most "sane" individuals would consider rediculous. They often need to forget about the person and the facts and only focus on the wrong that was done or is about to be done. I'm no fan of murderers and pedophiles but when my rights are threatened in the future because some case was won by denying someone a key right creating case law that could be used against me than I get worried. As I've said a thousand times, extremists are a neccesary part of society and it's always some poor persons job to be that extremist. Whether they like or agree with a person or the issue is inconsequential, their job is to fight for said person or issue.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dolemite
Eh, just take it off once you get in the door.

---

What if you get pulled over? Taking it off to show the cops will violate her beliefs as well.

And she lost BTW.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Yoshi
Further legitimacy would require a foundation of legitimacy on which to build. The ACLU is in its very title is a farce. The American Civil Liberties Union should treat every single person the exact same way. It is what they preach, but it is not what they do. If you're not a handicapable, Puerto Rican lesbian, good luck getting support for them. They cater to the lowest common denominator of society, because no self respecting minority would ever associate himself with that circus.

---

Brown people are just as stupid as white people.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MVS
Brown people are just as stupid as white people.

---

Most intelligent thing posted thus far.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Saint of Killers
Oh, and for Yoshi: you do realize that the ACLU has defended Neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klan members in the past, right? Doubt there are too many handicapped Peurto Rican lesbians in the KKK.

---

Yep. And Bill Clinton was a pot head in the past too. Are you willing to say that he still is because of what he once did?

I've heavily pro-immigration (I'm not one of the people that'll say all 'foreigners' should get the fuck out of my country) but this is ridiculous.

Bottom line. If you want to move to England, France, USA, whatever - you should have to attend compulsory lessons in the mother tongue of that country, and you should fit in with THEIR laws. If I wanted to live in Saudi Arabia, the payoff for getting to live where I wanted would be to follow the laws in effect in Saudi Arabia.

No. Arguments. If you want to move to another country, you MOVE TO THAT COUNTRY. You don't take all your expectations, customs, lives and whatever over there unless they fit in with what's in effect there. If you're not going to learn the language everyone else speaks, you have no right to be there.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Yoshi
Yep. And Bill Clinton was a pot head in the past too. Are you willing to say that he still is because of what he once did?

---

Uh, the ACLU defended the KKK in a court case 2 years ago. It's not like they stopped doing it in the 60s.

I wonder if I can get my next ID photo taken with me wearing a Ski-Mask, on the grounds that it makes me look cool.

You think they'd let you wear an oversized sombrero or possibly cowboy/nacho hat?

She lost. Fuck her.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bandit
What if you get pulled over? Taking it off to show the cops will violate her beliefs as well.

---

So we have to violate our own policy to protect her beliefs? Hmmmmmm. You can't backdoor the system that well....