Posted on 05/27/2003 1:54:32 PM PDT by chance33_98
If federal courts have ruled against other states before on this issue, as the news article suggests, then there is precedent
...they're in for an uphill battle!!
...I must be the only one following rules around here...
..I sure didn't know folks could get away with this!!!
I guess our new Homeland Security laws overrides what the Dept. of Motor Vehicles did...
..and Thank Goodness for that....
...But I'm just discovering what nonsense continues to go on in my chosen state....(almost 30 years!)
This is oh sooooo asinine!!!!....Crass stupidity!
This is somewhat of a ''two wrongs make a right' argument. I have little sympathy for those who use religion when they want an 'out' from what are considered normal social rules. And in fact, the courts, when they grant such 'outs', get far deeper into questions of religion than they should.
For example, the courts have ruled that some sects of American Indians can use peyote for 'religious purposes', but then ruled against Timothy Leary when he founded a church for the same purpose; thus putting themselves in the position of deciding what is and is not a legitimate religion. That is far more dangerous an assault on the first amendment than a rule that says everyone has to have a full facial photo on a drivers' license.
Second…In Panama, either sex is not allowed to have his/her passport photo taken wearing a hat or earrings or much less a veil. You don’t play, you don’t get a passport. The same goes for a driver’s license. Period. No argument.
The Plaintiff's Case
To rebut the state's case, Freeman is expected to call a number of religious experts to testify about the significance of the veil in the Muslim religion.
Marks, her attorney, told Courttv.com he will also attack the state's timing.
"We do not believe the events of 9/11 justify the government's intrusion to restrict a person's ability to live by their religious principles and religious beliefs," said Marks.
Before Sept. 11, Freeman had a Florida driver's license with a photo of her in traditional garb. She also had one in Illinois, where she lived before.
Marks is also seeking to show that his client has been singled out, when, he claims, hundreds of thousands of Florida residents are issued drivers licenses without photographs each year. "They issue them for a myriad of reasons," said the lawyer. "If they have such a compelling state interest that everyone must have a license with their photograph on it, then why do they have all of these exemptions on it?"
The lawyer says he has precedent on his side, citing three cases brought by Christian sects that believed the second commandment prohibits photographs. And 14 states, not including Florida, have built in exemptions to deal with such religious objections to photographs.
The State's Case
Jason Vail, the Florida assistant attorney general handling the case, says a victory for Freeman could damage one of the most important law enforcement mechanisms in the country, the official license photograph.
"The case has major implications for the integrity of driver's licenses around the country," he said. "If you allow exemptions from it for reasons like this, people who have a religious objection to taking photographs at all could ask for them too."
Terrorists, said Vail, could abuse such exemptions.
Freeman was twice photographed for mugshots in Illinois — once after being arrested on child abuse charges and once after her husband was arrested for firing a gun from the roof of the family's home on July 4. She pleaded guilty to aggravated battery in the first case and was not charged in the second.
"The argument is that there's a law enforcement interest in the mugshots," said Vail. "The interest is the same with a photo driver's license."
In addition to the expert on Islamic law, Vail also plans to call representatives from the Department of Motor Vehicles to explain the ways in which Muslim women have been accommodated.
"The practice has been to ask the men to leave the room. They lift the veil, we take the picture, they get the license, and they put it in their pocketbook and nobody sees it again," Vail said. "We don't care. We just have to have the picture."
But to Marks, Freeman's lawyer, the courtesy is still not a compromise: It isn't the process, but the photograph itself that his client objects to. "She believes that would violate a tenet of her religion," he said.
or maybe it was just Patty and Selma working at the DMV that day and they didn't care.
Baliff, next case please.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.