NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/07/license.veil.ap/index.html

A Muslim woman who, for religious reasons, wanted to wear a veil in her driver's license photo must follow a Florida law that requires a picture of her full face, a state appeals court ruled.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal upheld a 2003 ruling by an Orlando judge that Sultaana Freeman's right to free exercise of religion would not be burdened by the photo requirement.

"We recognized the tension created as a result of choosing between following the dictates of one's religion and the mandates of secular law," Appellate Judge Emerson R. Thompson Jr. wrote in Friday's opinion. "However, as long as the laws are neutral and generally applicable to the citizenry, they must be obeyed."

I'm still thinking on this one. If she wanted to wear a headscarf, but show her face, I would absolutely support her. However, I can certainly see a compelling interest in seeing her face in the ID. Perhaps they can have a female officer take the picture and allow the woman to specifically request a female officer on the scene if she ever is pulled over?

Discuss.

No right is absolute, and much as I respect the religious freedoms of people, the state does have a compelling interest in this situation, I believe.

well a head scarf wouldn't hide much of her face would it?it might hide her hair,but surely as a muslim she will be wearing the headscarf almost all of the time anyway so she will match the picture in her drivers license.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/07/license.veil.ap/index.html



I'm still thinking on this one. If she wanted to wear a headscarf, but show her face, I would absolutely support her. However, I can certainly see a compelling interest in seeing her face in the ID. Perhaps they can have a female officer take the picture and allow the woman to specifically request a female officer on the scene if she ever is pulled over?

Discuss.

Agreeing w/ Dems1.

*falls over twitching*

well a head scarf wouldn't hide much of her face would it?it might hide her hair,but surely as a muslim she will be wearing the headscarf almost all of the time anyway so she will match the picture in her drivers license.

A headscarf wouldn't, but she wants to wear a full veil - which covers everything but her eyes. There are some Muslims who feel that this is necessary to be modest. The way I understand it, only the woman's husband, children, and other women can see her face (hence why I suggested the female officer).

If she want's a driver's license she shows her face for the photo. If she really feels that strongly about her religion she can take the bus.

Agreeing w/ Dems1.

*falls over twitching*

/signed :p

If she's allowed to wear the veil in the photo for her DL, than any other person that matched her height, weight, and eye color would be able to pass as her. I don't think I need to explain why this is a problem in multiple ways (both people getting alcohol, porn, etc using her ID, and the vice versa, police officers having trouble identifying her as truly being the person in the image).

Call me a hardliner, but either bend to the necessities of "mundane", secular life or get out. Either get that picture ID or you won't get a driving license.

Amendment or not.

Religous freedom ends where it infringes with the requirements of everyday life. A picture ID that does not show the face is quite pointless, simply because it cannot serve its purpose: Identify the person.

At the same time, she will have to show her face to an officer pulling her over or be arrested. Same reasoning, you are free to practice your religion as long as it does not interfere with the necessity of secular life. If you don't want this to happen, don't drive a car.

Driving a car is, despite the believes of some people in the western world, NOT part of the human rights charta.

EDIT: Thinking about it, I would NOT allow her to operate a car while wearing a full scale veil. She is not able to see enough of her surroundings, has limited peripheral vision and is thus not fit to operate a car safely.

I believe some moslem headscarves for women simply cover the hair/neck but leave the majority of the face uncovered. However, there are different sects/practices which include:

~moderately strict and leaving only the eyes uncovered.

~Very strict the burka style covering (complete covering whenever in public - including eyes - think afghanistan women under the Taliban).

Generally speaking, my understanding is that covering the head and neck for women is considered most commonplace in the US, and what I have seen. If this is the case, then she should be able to have her picture taken in this format.

If the lady in question is following either of the other two practices, then I would agree with a female officer taking the picture of the uncovered face to meet the head/neck request due to religion, and yes, even the female officer.

Note that I would NOT advocate driving in either the headscarf/veil NOR the burka as they are both known to impair vision at least partially.

Well?

Do the laws of Islam include the "non-belivers?"

The problem with with the female officer is if there is one readily available. How long can they hold her while waiting before the question of illegal imprisonment can be raised?

It sounds crazy but that question has been raised with suspect shoplifters being held by store security.

I for one think that the license has to have a clear shot of her face. We don't have any issues of her wearing the scarf in public so it seems to be a small price to pay. Especially when dealing with the authorities.....

Driving a car is, despite the believes of some people in the western world, NOT part of the human rights charta.

Well said.

That's another good point. I wonder if she took the test wearing the head garmet in question.


Either way, hypothetical situation: Member of some religious group is supposed to impregnate a female, and sacrifice the child when it is born, upon reaching, say, his 18th birthday. Is the man allowed to sacrifice the child and not be punished, as the first amendment gaurantees his right to his religion?

No.

Religion, while a fine thing, can be taken too far.

There is the old Lemon Test for Religious Freedom which basically says, "If something is harmful to another person, it is not covered under the Religious freedom clause." For instance human sacrifice is clearly right out, parents are not allowed to stone their children in spite of the Biblical instuctions.

This skates right on the edge of the issue. Ideally there would not be a problem of harm whether the picture was on or not; however, since there might come a case where a positive identification on the basis of Drivers Licence could prevent harm to someone, I feel that requiring the face to show is a reasonable requirement.

Geez, didn't they get the memo about Religion being yanked out of America? Take the veil off or ride the bus.

There's a reason that they put your picture on the drivers license and it isn't for decoration.

Either she complys or she doesn't get a drivers license and has to use public transportation.

Wow. That's really a catch 22 isn't it?

But at the same time, I have to remove my hat and glasses to get a picture taken at the DMV. When I lived in Florida they were anal about even having hair in your eyes and said it had to be tied back (not to me , my hair has never been that long, but I heard them telling several female drivers at the DMV).

If a female officer takes the photo I don't see a problem with it. This would not impinge on her religious beliefs and if there was still a fight I could revoking her driving privileges.

There's a reason that they put your picture on the drivers license and it isn't for decoration.

Either she complys or she doesn't get a drivers license and has to use public transportation.

For the record...there is no public transport in Florida. They never created the infrastructure based on their tourist based economy.

I think they should just switch to the fingerprint it would be easier and safer

For the record...there is no public transport in Florida. They never created the infrastructure based on their tourist based economy.


ok then she can get a bicycle! :p

really though, if I move to a country where they require full body nudes on their licenses and I cannot comply I won't expect them to give me a license anyway. I'd either not get a license and drive illegally or move somewhere where I don't have to be nude on my license.

ok then she can get a bicycle! :p

really though, if I move to a country where they require full body nudes on their licenses and I cannot comply I won't expect them to give me a license anyway. I'd either not get a license and drive illegally or move somewhere where I don't have to be nude on my license.

So you feel instead of making a small convenience for her to get her license (i.e. a female officer takes the picture) deny her rights as a US citizen?

I will only partially agree with you as driving isn't a right it's a privilege (as I'm sure all our parents told us), however, this is avoidable and all parties can benefit.

And furthermore, where is this full nudity license country? I'm all for it.

So you feel instead of making a small convenience for her to get her license (i.e. a female officer takes the picture) deny her rights as a US citizen?

I will only partially agree with you as driving isn't a right it's a privilege (as I'm sure all our parents told us), however, this is avoidable and all parties can benefit.

And furthermore, where is this full nudity license country? I'm all for it.


I never said anything about not letting a female officer take her picture. I'm all for it. I'm against her having a veiled face for her license. As I said earlier, there's a reason there are pictures on licenses.

What rights as a citizen am I denying her? She has the right to get a license and could easily do so by taking a picture without a veiled face. If she doesnt want to tdo that then she can just not get a license.

And I would like to go the full body nude license analogy country as well.

Driver's License photos are for identification purposes, if her face is covered then there is no ID possible. If she truly can't abide by showing her face, then the solution is simple: don't get a driver's license.

So you feel instead of making a small convenience for her to get her license (i.e. a female officer takes the picture) deny her rights as a US citizen?

I will only partially agree with you as driving isn't a right it's a privilege (as I'm sure all our parents told us), however, this is avoidable and all parties can benefit.

And furthermore, where is this full nudity license country? I'm all for it.
I recently got my Licence Renewed, and saw in the written test area, several people taking the test... and some had translaters reading the test questions and answers (multiple choice questions) to the person taking the test. Now, I drive around and I only see signs printed in one language... English. so tell me, should they continue this 'convienence' so that these people can get a drivers licence and drive on roads using a language they cannot speak or read?

Drivers licences are also acceptable forms of ID for alot of privalidges... thus a positive ID of the subject is required. on the other hand, Her id can be stolen and who's to say who is under the burka when cashing checks, withdrawing money from the bank, making credit purchases... so the Positive ID is also for her protection as well.

and to suggest Fingerprinting? you think asking her to remove the veil is hard enough, think about all those people against the government storing personal data on law abiding citizens.

Muslim perspective: If she believes that Islam commands her to cover her face, she has been taught a very incorrect and harmful version of Islam and should be very happy and thanking Allah every waking moment that she lives in a country where she's even allowed, as a woman, to drive a car.

Yes, only female officers should handle her. She should not, however, feel any obligation whatsoever to cover her face. My sister needs a little re-education and possibly to knock her husband upside the head.

I think that the fingerprinting idea was a good one actually.

I will only partially agree with you as driving isn't a right it's a privilege (as I'm sure all our parents told us), however, this is avoidable and all parties can benefit.
Driving is not a right.

Regardless of your beliefs; you have to follow the law or you are a criminal. The laws are there to protect you and everyone who is a citizen of your country and if a few people can't wear their religious garbs for whatever reason: That's just too bad.

It would be a waste of resources to try and develop a system for these people; if they don't like the way things are done in the Western Hemisphere, they can live in the countries that do respect their customs.

Other states have photo-exempt licenses, for religious reasons.

If they can manage, I don't see why Florida has a "compelling interest" that they don't.

In fact, Florida formerly had such an exemption. This thread refers to the case in which they finally revoked it.

The majority of states (35) have photo-exemptions for religious reasons.

EDIT: Correction. 35 exempt headgear. 13 have photo-exemptions.

It would be a waste of resources to try and develop a system for these people

Don't use that term. You may as well say "raghead" or "******" or whatever.

Cuz the "these people" in this situation happens to be an American citizen, same as you and me. (well, maybe not you, I don't know)

Call me a hardliner, but either bend to the necessities of "mundane", secular life or get out. Either get that picture ID or you won't get a driving license.

Amendment or not.

Religous freedom ends where it infringes with the requirements of everyday life. A picture ID that does not show the face is quite pointless, simply because it cannot serve its purpose: Identify the person.

At the same time, she will have to show her face to an officer pulling her over or be arrested. Same reasoning, you are free to practice your religion as long as it does not interfere with the necessity of secular life. If you don't want this to happen, don't drive a car.

Driving a car is, despite the believes of some people in the western world, NOT part of the human rights charta.

EDIT: Thinking about it, I would NOT allow her to operate a car while wearing a full scale veil. She is not able to see enough of her surroundings, has limited peripheral vision and is thus not fit to operate a car safely.

well ok, I'll call you a hardliner if you want me too, but I still agree 100% with what you say.

First, I don't believe covering the face is a religious edict. I think its a matter of custom.

Second, driving is a priviledge, NOT a right. We teach our kids this when they're getting their licenses. You follow the rules or you don't drive.

Other states have photo-exempt licenses, for religious reasons.

If they can manage, I don't see why Florida has a "compelling interest" that they don't.

You don't think that being able to determine whether or not the person carrying the license is the person listed on the license is a compelling interest? In that case, why give them at all?

How do these photo-exempt licenses work? How do the police/other government officials determine the identity of the person in question?

Other states have photo-exempt licenses, for religious reasons.

If they can manage, I don't see why Florida has a "compelling interest" that they don't.

none of them should. Florida is doing the right thing by sticking to their guns. the other states that allow such a ridiculous practice as a covered face on an ID picture needs a few impeachments and a new set of standards.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/07/license.veil.ap/index.html



I'm still thinking on this one. If she wanted to wear a headscarf, but show her face, I would absolutely support her. However, I can certainly see a compelling interest in seeing her face in the ID. Perhaps they can have a female officer take the picture and allow the woman to specifically request a female officer on the scene if she ever is pulled over?

Discuss.

I like your second suggestion, as government law does not supercede 1st amendment rights.

1st: Getting a photo ID without your face on it is pointless.
2nd: Getting a female photographer to take the picture shuold be possible, or use a machine, don't know the exact requirements for the pic in the US. Here in the netherlands the county house(which issues licenses, pasports, euro-id cards etc.) has a pic machine right there with the expres purpose of maknig ID pics.
3rd: Driving a car with a full veil seems kind off dangerous to me, i wouldn't want to share the road with someone driving like that.
4th: Getting a female police oficer on the scene when she is pulled over is a waste of her time and the police's time.

none of them should. Florida is doing the right thing by sticking to their guns. the other states that allow such a ridiculous practice as a covered face on an ID picture needs a few impeachments and a new set of standards.

Why? Because it would only discriminate against Muslims?

I like your second suggestion, as government law does not supercede 1st amendment rights.

I am shocked you would support that! Really. [/sarcasm]

3rd: Driving a car with a full veil seems kind off dangerous to me, i wouldn't want to share the road with someone driving like that.

Meh ... I have to share the road with people who are eating, reading, talking on the cell phone, and yelling at their kids all at the same time.

4th: Getting a female police oficer on the scene when she is pulled over is a waste of her time and the police's time.

It's done all the time around here. It's not that big of a deal. Many police partnerships are geared toward a male and female in the same vehicle as a just in case.

That's another good point. I wonder if she took the test wearing the head garmet in question.


Either way, hypothetical situation: Member of some religious group is supposed to impregnate a female, and sacrifice the child when it is born, upon reaching, say, his 18th birthday. Is the man allowed to sacrifice the child and not be punished, as the first amendment gaurantees his right to his religion?

No.


That's because one right imposes itself on another. Her veil, however, does not violate any other right and therefore this is a poor analogy.

Driving is not a right it is a privilage. The state is not compelled to give anyone privilage of driving. If the lady cannot have a picture taken that is her right. No one is going to compel her to have a picture taken. But it is part of what the state requires to receive the privliage of driving.

It's done all the time around here. It's not that big of a deal. Many police partnerships are geared toward a male and female in the same vehicle as a just in case.

But that's not everywhere. A female patrolman is an oddity......

There is the old Lemon Test for Religious Freedom which basically says, "If something is harmful to another person, it is not covered under the Religious freedom clause." For instance human sacrifice is clearly right out, parents are not allowed to stone their children in spite of the Biblical instuctions.

This skates right on the edge of the issue. Ideally there would not be a problem of harm whether the picture was on or not; however, since there might come a case where a positive identification on the basis of Drivers Licence could prevent harm to someone, I feel that requiring the face to show is a reasonable requirement.


But if you use the basis "it could potentially involve the safety of another" then it could be used to restrict more religious freedoms and therefore establish a totalitarian state. This is kind of similar to the Patriot Act in priniciple.

Meh ... I have to share the road with people who are eating, reading, talking on the cell phone, and yelling at their kids all at the same time.

Me too, doesn't mean i want to share the road with them ;)


It's done all the time around here. It's not that big of a deal. Many police partnerships are geared toward a male and female in the same vehicle as a just in case.

Didn't know that, good idea actually.

You don't think that being able to determine whether or not the person carrying the license is the person listed on the license is a compelling interest? In that case, why give them at all?

How do these photo-exempt licenses work? How do the police/other government officials determine the identity of the person in question?

Good question. So, in one of these states, i could memorise a few numbers, claim religous exemption to a photo, and steal someone's identity?

There's a reason that they put your picture on the drivers license and it isn't for decoration.

Either she complys or she doesn't get a drivers license and has to use public transportation.


I'm telling you, they need to come up with a different system for driver's identification....maybe a fingerprint system? That would be killing two birds with one stone: It doesn't infringe the right to practice Islam, and it eliminates the issue of notoriously bad license photos :D

I'm telling you, they need to come up with a different system for driver's identification....maybe a fingerprint system? That would be killing two birds with one stone: It doesn't infringe the right to practice Islam, and it eliminates the issue of notoriously bad license photos :D


Only problem with that is the costs. How do you validate the finger print? You need a quick way to take a print and compare and that is probably rather expensive.

I'm telling you, they need to come up with a different system for driver's identification....maybe a fingerprint system? That would be killing two birds with one stone: It doesn't infringe the right to practice Islam, and it eliminates the issue of notoriously bad license photos :D

you never told me that!

I do think the fingerprint idea is good... or maybe even a DNA sample and perhaps some form of biometrics

also, quit killing birds - they didn't do anything to you!

If she's allowed to wear the veil in the photo for her DL, than any other person that matched her height, weight, and eye color would be able to pass as her. I don't think I need to explain why this is a problem in multiple ways (both people getting alcohol, porn, etc using her ID, and the vice versa, police officers having trouble identifying her as truly being the person in the image).
I say she can wear the stupid veil and if she has her liscense stolen, TS. I ain't got no sympathy for people who let their beleifs get in the way of common sense.

also, quite killing birds - they didn't do anything to you!

:D

Hey Neo, don't you guys eat squirrils too? :p

I recently got my Licence Renewed, and saw in the written test area, several people taking the test... and some had translaters reading the test questions and answers (multiple choice questions) to the person taking the test. Now, I drive around and I only see signs printed in one language... English. so tell me, should they continue this 'convienence' so that these people can get a drivers licence and drive on roads using a language they cannot speak or read?

Drivers licences are also acceptable forms of ID for alot of privalidges... thus a positive ID of the subject is required. on the other hand, Her id can be stolen and who's to say who is under the burka when cashing checks, withdrawing money from the bank, making credit purchases... so the Positive ID is also for her protection as well.

and to suggest Fingerprinting? you think asking her to remove the veil is hard enough, think about all those people against the government storing personal data on law abiding citizens.


Silence and put your finger in the device.....*alarm sounds* Hey! You're that freethinker and enemy of the people!!! Someone call the secret police!!!

Muslim perspective: If she believes that Islam commands her to cover her face, she has been taught a very incorrect and harmful version of Islam and should be very happy and thanking Allah every waking moment that she lives in a country where she's even allowed, as a woman, to drive a car.

Yes, only female officers should handle her. She should not, however, feel any obligation whatsoever to cover her face. My sister needs a little re-education and possibly to knock her husband upside the head.



What are your modesty laws? Ours just say....be modest....not very specific >.>

:D

Hey Neo, don't you guys eat squirrils too? :p



Nah, most of us prefer beef or chicken :cool:

Only problem with that is the costs. How do you validate the finger print? You need a quick way to take a print and compare and that is probably rather expensive.

A national database so you can instantly be identified and....wait....*makes sure the black helicopters aren't hovering nearby*....it would be pretty inexpensive to distribute hardware that copies the fingerprint image and compares it to others.

There are certain requirements to getting a driver's license. There is no such thing as a right to drive. It is a privelege. If she chooses not to follow the rules of getting a Driver's License, then so be it. It would not be granted to her. On how bad she wants it will determine whether or not she'll show her face.

Some more food for thought:

We're not talking about a registration to vote or healthcare. We're not talking about a RIGHT. As more than one person pointed out, we're talking about a PRIVILEGE.

I don't know any constitution, of any country in this world, where driving a car is a right you have and that your country has to provide to you. To drive a car, you need a license. To get a license, you have to provide a picture that allows your identification. Failing to produce this results in you not getting a license. Period.


About fingerprinting: In comes the next religion requiring you to wear gloves all the time, what then?

3rd: Driving a car with a full veil seems kind off dangerous to me, i wouldn't want to share the road with someone driving like that.

I would assume that she took her driving test wearing the veil and passed. I don't actually know how much vision it cuts off, but I do know that my one-eyed friend (who has no depth perception and can't see at all out of his left eye, since it is glass) can drive just fine. It takes more attention on his part, and a tilt of his head, but he can manage just fine.

But that's not everywhere. A female patrolman is an oddity......

Where the heck do you live? I've lived in various parts of rural GA and always seen female officers.

I don't know any constitution, of any country in this world, where driving a car is a right you have and that your country has to provide to you. To drive a car, you need a license. To get a license, you have to provide a picture that allows your identification. Failing to produce this results in you not getting a license. Period.

This is pretty much what everyone has been saying. But what do you say to the idea that we accomodate her as far as possible, by, for instance, ensuring that only a female sees said picture except in times of emergency?

This is pretty much what everyone has been saying. But what do you say to the idea that we accomodate her as far as possible, by, for instance, ensuring that only a female sees said picture except in times of emergency?
Why should the rest of the residents of Florida take on extra expense ('cause it will be passed on to them) just because she feels she requires special treatment?

Why should the rest of the residents of Florida take on extra expense ('cause it will be passed on to them) just because she feels she requires special treatment?

I don't see how this is going to add much extra expense at all. Unless, by some really odd chance (or some discriminatory practice), there are no female workers at the DMV and no female officers in the local PD, there is no added expense at all.

It is really no different than having female customs officers at airports so that female passengers (including Muslims) can choose to only be searched by other women.

There is no right to an automobile; it is a privelige granted to you by the state, and so they have the right to collect the information necessary to ensure the safety and security of all drivers on the road. This doesn't violate your rights, because you aren't entitled to operate an automobile. Giving her special priveliges that will cost more money and reduce the effectiveness of the license system is fundamentally unjust to the rest of the population. In fact, it pushes her beliefs on everyone else due to the extra costs.

And, we don't need to accomodate her for this. If she doesn't want men to see it, she shouldn't do anything that results in that situation.

Silence and put your finger in the device.....*alarm sounds* Hey! You're that freethinker and enemy of the people!!! Someone call the secret police!!!
Oh SHIT!!! :eek:
*Runs while everyone is trying to remember the Secret and Unlisted Number for the Secret Police!*

But what do you say to the idea that we accomodate her as far as possible, by, for instance, ensuring that only a female sees said picture except in times of emergency?

Who pays for it? Because if you have to put a female officer in every car, or even if you only have to call for a female officer every time she gets pulled over, it will cause additional expenses.

Religion is something nice and pretty, and if you want it, enjoy it. But don't have ME pay for YOUR faith! Your religious freedom ends where it starts to cut into my life.

Oh SHIT!!! :eek:
*Runs while everyone is trying to remember the Secret and Unlisted Number for the Secret Police!*

Remember ?

1-800-RAT-NOW

Not that hard ;)

There is no right to an automobile; it is a privelige granted to you by the state, and so they have the right to collect the information necessary to ensure the safety and security of all drivers on the road. This doesn't violate your rights, because you aren't entitled to operate an automobile. Giving her special priveliges that will cost more money and reduce the effectiveness of the license system is fundamentally unjust to the rest of the population. In fact, it pushes her beliefs on everyone else due to the extra costs.

And, we don't need to accomodate her for this. If she doesn't want men to see it, she shouldn't do anything that results in that situation.
Exactly my point.

I don't see how this is going to add much extra expense at all. Unless, by some really odd chance (or some discriminatory practice), there are no female workers at the DMV and no female officers in the local PD, there is no added expense at all.

It is really no different than having female customs officers at airports so that female passengers (including Muslims) can choose to only be searched by other women.
except you will need two people in the patrol car, one male, and one Female. that means more cops on the force. more money for their pay.

and if there's not enough women on the force to double up... then any stop that has a muslim woman means a longer delay because a female officer needs to be called and sent to that spot. longer delays means more fustrated drivers and passengers that the lone officer needs to deal with.

Three, when called to court, how can the officer positivly id anyone wearing a veil. I wanna see any court that tries to convict anyone by positivly id'ing someone in a veil.

Remember ?

1-800-RAT-NOW

Not that hard ;)
psst... it was changed... didn't you get the memo... and besides, you're one number short.

Driving is not a right. There are certain requirements a driver must fulfil, and one of them is a clear picture on one's license. If you don't want your picture taken, ride the bus.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/07/license.veil.ap/index.html



I'm still thinking on this one. If she wanted to wear a headscarf, but show her face, I would absolutely support her. However, I can certainly see a compelling interest in seeing her face in the ID. Perhaps they can have a female officer take the picture and allow the woman to specifically request a female officer on the scene if she ever is pulled over?

Discuss.

When you live in a secular society you have to make some concessions. Get over it. And as for requesting a female officer, it wasn't like they want to strip search the lady, get over it.

Even if she got a picture ID with her face uncovered, how in the world is it going to do any good when she gets pulled over with a face covering on? The policemen (to my knowledge) don't have x-ray vision to see through the covering to her face/

Even if she got a picture ID with her face uncovered, how in the world is it going to do any good when she gets pulled over with a face covering on? The policemen (to my knowledge) don't have x-ray vision to see through the covering to her face/
she would have to remove her face covering long enough for the officer to verify that it was actually her. As I said before, if she has that much of a problem with uncovering her face she should just not get a driver's license.

Never mind the picture. (Which I agree needs to show the face as it can be used as official Identification for reasons far beyond just the operation of a motor vehicle)


What I want to know is just how restrictive to the vision a full veil is. Frankly, I would expect that it puts enough restrictions on peripheral vision to make it damn dangerous to wear behind the wheel of a car.

Muslim women dont have to wear veils, the Koran only says they should dress modestly. This is open to interpretation, but her desire to wear a veil is personal, not a religious necessity like the turbans sikhs wear, and are allowed to wear instead of crash helmets. Of course she should have to show her face.

I think religous freedoms are among the most important right in the constitution, but i have to say the state has an arguement here, if there was some other way of identification she could show, it would be ideal.

Right. In Germany the thing goes like this: Face and hair have to be visible and you have to be facing at a slight angle. You can be exempt from showing your hair for religious reasons only if you pay a fine (of about € 15, last time I heard). This goes for anyone, including nuns, as a German court ruled a couple of years ago when one wanted to be exempt from paying the fine.
But the face has got to be visible for ID.

I think religous freedoms are among the most important right in the constitution, but i have to say the state has an arguement here, if there was some other way of identification she could show, it would be ideal.

Nobody wants to take away that right. But the point is a completely different one. We're not here to say she must not pray to her God or must not observe any regulations concerning food or actions. This is something personal that's nobody's business but hers. And that's what the amendment concerning religious freedom meant. Back when it was issued, the way to praise God was a big issue, and people tried to impose their view and their way on others.

We're not talking about not allowing her to praise her God and "outlawing" her religion. That was the main concern when the amendment was passed. We're talking about something that is in no way connected to her religion (unless something changed radically in Islam and driving a car is now a requirement to enter their Heaven).

She does not have to do it to observe her religion. She has the choice. Stay with the strict rules that her religion impose on her (whether it's really so or whether she thinks she has to do it is pretty moot when it comes to something that isn't based on facts but rather on faith) or drive a car.

The choice is hers.

Driving a car is not essential to someone's well being. We're not talking about having access to food and water or shelter. We're talking about driving a car.

What are your modesty laws? Ours just say....be modest....not very specific >.>

About the same. Most of the modesty rules are for while at Mosque. Men and women both should cover their hair, arms, and legs to the ankle while at Mosque or while "travelling in foreign lands" (which the woman in question is not as the US is her home) or while in mixed company (men and women grouped). In public venues such as the market or whatnot, a modicum of decency is mandated, but not to the extreme of within the mosque. Hair doesn't need to be covered, etc, but many men and women do it anyway. I will wear head covering (kippah) and I wear a full beard, but I rarely put on long sleeves just to go to the grocers.

At home ... all bets are off. Be nude. Doesn't matter. Modesty is not for God ... God's already seen your wang. God's not impressed.

... God's already seen your wang. God's not impressed.
ROFL

At home ... all bets are off. Be nude. Doesn't matter. Modesty is not for God ... God's already seen your wang. God's not impressed.

You speak for yourself. :D

Who pays for it? Because if you have to put a female officer in every car, or even if you only have to call for a female officer every time she gets pulled over, it will cause additional expenses.

First off, it will only add any extra costs if she is constantly getting pulled over (there is no reason to try and put a female officer in every car). If she is constantly getting pulled over, her license is going to be revoked anyways!

Second of all, she already has the right, as a US citizen, to refuse to show her license to a male officer. It may mean that they leave her car there and bring her in before it is shown - but that right is already there.

If I got pulled over tomorrow, I could refuse to let a male officer check my identity. It would be silly, I think, but I could do it. And he would take me in and I would see a female officer instead.

Driving a car is not essential to someone's well being. We're not talking about having access to food and water or shelter. We're talking about driving a car.

Depending on exactly where she lives, the two may go hand in hand. She may not have any access to food without driving a car. There are many cities that weren't exactly planned for those without.

I'm not sure about Florida but other states have a program in which a digital image of ones thumbprint and an ID number that links the print to criminal records/law enforcement databases on the back of drivers licenses. If she were willing to be fingerprinted and wait for the comparison of her prints and the prints on file to be done, then let her wear he viel.

I'm not sure about Florida but other states have a program in which a digital image of ones thumbprint and an ID number that links the print to criminal records/law enforcement databases on the back of drivers licenses. If she were willing to be fingerprinted and wait for the comparison of her prints and the prints on file to be done, then let her wear he viel.
So she writes a check or uses a credit card at a store, how can the retail person id her if she and her ID are veiled?
Do the retail stores in those states have Fingerprinting machines to id and match the fingerprint?
What if that isn't her but someone who took her ID?
Thousands of her family's Hard Earned Dollars will be taken because one veiled person looks like another.

at least with a photo ID, a female retail person can confirm her Identity in private, but without that Detailed Photo ID...

A license photo is for identification. A police officer needs to be able to identify the person from their license photo. Anyone else they show the photo to for identification needs to be able to identify them from their photo. You cannot identify someone wearing a mask covering the entire face from a photo. Hence she should not wear a mask in the photo.