View Single Post
Old 06-09-2003, 01:03 AM   #61 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky
Psycho
 
Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks
Quote:
If you can justify any breaking of laws/rules with "freedom of religion", I'm going to start a religion that involves random human sacrifices and refusal to pay taxes.
i) She isn't asking to break the law she is asking for the law to respect her beliefs.
ii) The law on murder would not be given exemptions for religious beliefs and I would not want it to. Neither would she or the ACLU. What we are asking for is reasonable. The case is in Florida, where their 1998 Religious Freedom Restoration Act states that the state of Florida must not interfere with a person religious practice (a right protected under the First Ammendment) unless there is a "compelling government interest".
My case is that there is no "compelling government interest", they are just being too lazy, inconsiderate and paranoid to set up a non-photo system for the handful of people who need it.
I have already made suggestions as to how a safe and cheap system could be set up and this would negate the "compelling" argument.

Quote:
If women cover their faces because of traditions from other country they come from, and expect to be granted the same courtesies in America, is absolutely insane to say the least.These people have enough freedoms in the world without demanding more.

AND

The adage "when in Rome, do as Romans do" should be common courtesy when you visit or live in a nation which is not your origin.
You are spot on. She came to Florida from some strange, distant land: Illinois.
She is an American citizen who converted to Islam.
And those Pentecostal Christians, where do you plan to ship them back to? England?
Her rights are your rights. If you want to be allowed to practice and believe according to your faith then you should allow her to do the same.
And "These people" clearly do not have enough freedoms, otherwise she wouldn't be in court trying to defend those that have been taken away from her.

Remember: For the last 17 years of her life (assuming she got her licence at 17 and is now 35) she has been or would have been allowed to drive with a licence with no photo. No compelling reason for all those years and for the dozens of years before it.
Then one day that government takes away her licence and says "there is now a compelling reason". Erm, what? Where did it spring from? It can't be 9-11 because we've ruled that one out. So what on earth can it be?

Quote:
4thTimeLucky, in the US the license is used as more than just proof of permission to drive. It's used very much for identification, for example to buy liquor or gamble in Vegas, so if you can't tell whether the person in the photo is the person in front of you it's useless.
She is a Muslim. A pretty devout out at that it seems. Do you really think that she would mind if her driving licence only let her drive and not go gambling in Vegas or buy alcohol?

And let me get this straight: For the purposes of the shop keeper, a signature is not adequate for identifying that the person is who they say they are on the driving licence, but a signature is adequate for identifying who they say they are on their credit card?

------
What I see is a group of people who talk about "them" and "those people". Who seem to think "these people" are a sponge and inconvenience in America and should go back to "their own country". Who see a religious belief that they don't really 'get', so you don't really respect. Who are scared that her kind are a threat to you somehow.
She is a US citizen. She is one of you. She has the same rights and freedoms as you do. She pays the same taxes that you do to uphold those freedoms. All she wants to do is drive her car in peace without having to disgrace herself and her religious beliefs by showing her face to a stranger. What her precise religion is is irrelevant. You could place anyone into this story, so long as they believed that the taking of their own photo was morally and religiously wrong. It is the First Ammendment principle that a person is free to express, follow and practice their religion that is at issue here. She isn't asking for much. To the state it would be no hassle at all - they could even charge her a special licencing fee to cover any costs - but to her it is a matter of giving up her beliefs or her right to drive.
__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

Last edited by 4thTimeLucky; 06-09-2003 at 01:09 AM..
4thTimeLucky is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360