Ok, I'm going to do my best to decipher what's going on here.
In the red corner!
Photo ID has been a definite requirement of many, many things across a wide variety of platforms. You can't walk into a bar and ask for a drink without being expected to produce a photo ID to verify that you're 21 or older. If a police officer pulls you over, you need to a) show him your driver's license, and b) be able to prove that the license is valid. In the current system, that's just not possible short of photo ID.
In the blue corner!
Yes, her religion restricts showing her face in public. Most people, when coming here, blend with the decidedly unreligious (NOT atheist) culture and abandon their religions entirely. She begs to differ, and I always pray for the underdog, so more power to her. Besides, a lack of religion is a bad thing, there are a lot of very rational theories about the world's problems being the result of a lack of religion in today's first-world society.
And now, the part you've all been waiting for... the Nonsense's decision.
It has often been said that religion is in the eye of the believer. In other words, your religion is what you say it is. (Debate it all you want, you cannot come up with a rational argument against this that I cannot strike down easily.) By this rule, if she says that she cannot be photographed unveiled, then she cannot be photographed unveiled. HOWEVER, just like with freedom of speech, when it comes to freedom of religion, you have to draw a line somewhere; much as you can't run into a crowded theater screaming "fire" unless there really is a fire, you can't kill someone because your religion says you have to. So the real debate is, where do you draw the line? Specifically, does photo ID fall under the category of making compromises with religion in the name of public safety? Hm. I think that having a common ID is important for public safety; it is not easily enforced unless a public official can identify beyond a reasonable doubt any person they come across, which is nearly impossible short of having a common ID system. And I don't think there is an affordable, reliable form of ID that we can use except for photo ID. Thus, until someone steps up and
PROVES that there is a common ID system that is affordable and reliable besides photo ID, the judge's ruling stays. (I'm really looking forward to magnetic strip iris scanners though
)
Take or leave my argument, do your best to shoot it down, whatever you want. BUT, the next person to debate whether or not her religion permits her being photographed, and I'm going on record by saying this, will be shot in the foot. Repeatedly, if needed. And that's after I shoot down their argument in the most humiliating way possible.