Why should you be allowed to wear a mask for your Drivers Licence photo?

[Caligastia]

A judge ruled Thursday that a Muslim woman can pursue her legal fight to wear a veil for a driver's license photo, despite objections from the state that it jeopardizes public safety.

Judge Ted Coleman denied a state motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Sultaana Freeman, whose driver's license was revoked when she refused to replace her photograph with one showing her face unveiled.

Freeman, 34, is suing to get her license back with a photo that hides most of her face, except her eyes, behind a veil known as a niqab.

Freeman wears the veil for religious reasons

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56445,00.html

I saw this story on O'Reilly last night. His producers had called a number of prominent muslim leaders who all said it would be fine for her to remove the veil for her photo, so it looks to me like she is just being a pain in the arse. As far as I am concerned she should have to remove her veil for the photo, or do without a licence.

People who submit to primitive religious customs should not be given special treatment because of their ignorance.

This lawsuit will no doubt fail, but is there anyone here who would actually defend this woman's actions?

I think she is despicable. People like this are responsible for wasting valuable court time. She should have to pay a hefty fine for this when she loses.

 

[amadeus]

I'm concerned that people will begin using this as an excuse to cover themselves up when they are getting their photographs taken for this kind of thing, and it will become a safety hazard. If she wins this case, what's to stop me from turning my back to the camera when I get my picture taken?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

I agree, this is utter rubbish, and goes so far beyond the realms of reality to the dark crannies of the National Inquirer.
She should be fined, and deveiled.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Isn't it kind of pointless to have a photo in your driving license if you're allowed to be masked?

Religious freedom is fine but not when they may harm the safety of others I think.

 

[amadeus]

I agree. What's to stop another middle-aged Muslim woman from using that license and driving a car with it?

 

[nixon]

A strange story, that smells of abuse of our legal system. In this case she should follow the rules just like everyone else do. Otherwise, she simply should not be allowed to drive a car then.

 

[G-Man]

I just thought - even if she'll agree to take the photo, will she agree to show her face to an officer incase he'll need to verify her?

 

[Graeme the mad]

I disagree with it (as you'd expect) but thing that its hypocritical in any society where religions are treated as if they are true for that individual.

 

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by G-Man
I just thought - even if she'll agree to take the photo, will she agree to show her face to an officer incase he'll need to verify her?

If not she should be arrested.

 

[philippe]

Yes SHE MUST follow the system or she is kicked out of the system.
hey muslim girl take off that headdress and show your head.We wont bite you.Religouis freedom my a$$.Everyone must follow the rules.

 

[HotDog Fish]

Well those muslim guys he talked to said it was perfectly fine to eneil herself for a drivers ID photo, I don't see why she doesn't. And I an honestly say I have to idea what she's trying to accomplish with this frivilous lawsuit

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by HotDog Fish
And I an honestly say I have to idea what she's trying to accomplish with this frivilous lawsuit

I think it's obvious what she is trying to accomplish. She feels that her right to freedom of religion is being compromised. She is trying to stop that from happening.

Whether you believe her religious freedoms are being compromised or not is immaterial. Right or wrong, she believes it. The lawsuit may be baseless in fact, and unwinnable, but I wouldn't call it frivolous.

 

[Caligastia]

Its frivolous and a waste of time. That judge who allowed this to go further is a moron.

 

[Hitro]

Am I the only one that finds it ironic that she's not allowed to show her face but to drive a car?

 

[HotDog Fish]

Originally posted by Dralix


I think it's obvious what she is trying to accomplish. She feels that her right to freedom of religion is being compromised. She is trying to stop that from happening.

Whether you believe her religious freedoms are being compromised or not is immaterial. Right or wrong, she believes it. The lawsuit may be baseless in fact, and unwinnable, but I wouldn't call it frivolous.

Oh, well once you put it that it makes sense from her standpoint at least, haing a cold sucks, I'm even less coherent than usual

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Hitro
Am I the only one that finds it ironic that she's not allowed to show her face but to drive a car?

That is what I was thinking. They're letting her drive a car; this is actually an improvement!

 

[knowltok2]

Good call Hitro

She doesn't have a leg to stand on with this one. There is no ***-given right to drive a car. Also, the requirement is not religiously based.

Out of curiousity, was this on the 'most ridiculous' portion of the show?

 

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by knowltok2
Out of curiousity, was this on the 'most ridiculous' portion of the show?

No, it was one of the main discussions. O'Reilly was out that night, that other guy was filling in for him.

 

[napoleon526]

How dare this woman have religious beliefs that differ from the way our society functions! Some people really have nerve! (heavy sarcasm)

 

[Ozz]

Yes!

That way your driver picture will match the 7-11 robbery surveilience camera's picture of you. And the police
won't be so confused.