Quote:
Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
i) She isn't asking to break the law she is asking for the law to respect her beliefs.
|
If the law states that a photo ID is required (and while it may not say that explicitly, that's what judges do - interpret laws) then she IS asking to break a law.
Quote:
|
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.
|
That's just the thing - she DOESN'T "need" it. They DID offer to set up a system that wouldn't go against her beliefs at all. What's so hard to understand about that?
Quote:
|
I have already made suggestions as to how a safe and cheap system could be set up and this would negate the "compelling" argument.
|
Please recap these suggestions because apparently I'm missing them. A person carrying 6 forms of ID - none with a photo - is no more clearly the possessor of that identification than a person carrying only one form of ID without a photo.
Quote:
|
You are spot on. She came to Florida from some strange, distant land: Illinois.
|
I live in Illinois, and as far as I'm aware pictures are required on our licenses as well.
Quote:
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.
|
As other have mentioned - the religion she is basing this argument on doesn't even allow her to drive. You brought up conscientious objectors concerning the draft in the US earlier. See, the thing is though - the government WON'T give someone conscientious objector status (where they would STILL force the person to participate, just in something along the lines of a medic unit) unless that person can prove to a reasonable extent that they believe and FOLLOW THE BELIEFS they claim to have. In other words, if I were to get drafted and claim conscientious objector status, based on my religious beliefs, and I couldn't show that I follow those religious beliefs and follow them well then the government would not grant me conscientious objector status. Similarly, she has proven that the beliefs which she is claiming to have that cause her to not be able to be photographed are really not all THAT important to her - because if they were she wouldn't be driving in the first place.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Freedom isn't an excuse for anarchy. There's no such thing as a set of rules that accomodate everyone and it's only detrimental to attempt to find one.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Again, as an Illinois citizen, I'd love to see something that says people can drive without a photo ID here.
Quote:
|
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?
|
Yes, the reasoning is silly. 9/11 isn't a reason that this ruling should be as it is. The fact that it never should have been otherwise is.
Quote:
|
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?
|
Devout, eh? So why is she driving if the sect she belongs to says she can't?
Quote:
|
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?
|
Like Atanverno, I too think that a signature is inadequate. Not only is my signature probably easy to forge, it's almost never the same, sometimes not even resembling past signatures.
Quote:
|
but to her it is a matter of giving up her beliefs or her right to drive.
|
Last I checked, "driving" is not protected by any amendments to the constitution. It is not a right, it is a priviledge.
It's not a matter of not respecting her religious beliefs. But religious beliefs can't just give a free ticket to do things differently. A line must be drawn somewhere. And they were willing to draw that line in such a way for this woman that she wouldn't have needed to violate ANY part of her religion (at least no part she wasn't already violating by driving in the first place) in order to be able to drive.