Not the veil again!

[Spiffor]

I agree with Space05us. I fail to see why the use of a burkha on an ID should be tolerated in any way.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I agree with Space05us. I fail to see why the use of a burkha on an ID should be tolerated in any way.

Yay, we have a Frenchie liberal on our side.

We aren't allowed to go out of our way to persecute religions, but we are not obligated to go out of our way to accommodate them.

[MichaeltheGreat]

What Islamic (or any other countries) require in their secular laws is irrelevant to the case. Foreign legal authority doesn't exist in the US, unless contracts or treaties incorporate that foreign law by their terms. Even if that authority existed, it would still have to meet US Constitutional tests.

The whole case (which should be dismissed for failing to state a claim) on one factual issue and one legal issue. Factual issue: Is wearing a full veil at all times clearly prescribed by a recognized religion? Legal issue: Is there a fundamental public interest to the state's requirement? The legal issue is clear - the driver must be identifiable, to prove she is in fact a licensed driver, in order to drive on public roads. The public interest demonstrates that the intent is not discriminatory, even if the effect is incidentally discriminatory.

[Al B. Sure!]

damn this woman just had to be difficult... take the veil off for 3 ****ing seconds!

(by the way, would she be allowed to drive with a veil over her face?)

[Dinner]

Of course there is another issue which is begging to be brought up. Let's say this woman gives in and gets he picture taken. What is to stop her from getting pulled over for speeding and refuses to remove her medieval head gear? The cop will need to varify that she is the person in the picture so he will need to see her face, yet, I am sure someone will claim that is against her religion.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
What Islamic (or any other countries) require in their secular laws is irrelevant to the case. Foreign legal authority doesn't exist in the US, unless contracts or treaties incorporate that foreign law by their terms. Even if that authority existed, it would still have to meet US Constitutional tests.

The whole case (which should be dismissed for failing to state a claim) on one factual issue and one legal issue. Factual issue: Is wearing a full veil at all times clearly prescribed by a recognized religion? Legal issue: Is there a fundamental public interest to the state's requirement? The legal issue is clear - the driver must be identifiable, to prove she is in fact a licensed driver, in order to drive on public roads. The public interest demonstrates that the intent is not discriminatory, even if the effect is incidentally discriminatory.

What I wanted to say, but couldn't find the words for.

[Al B. Sure!]

Again... is it legal to drive with a veil over your face?

[JohnT]

Albert: Yes, the veil doesn't impair vision.

The REAL issue is this:

"Freeman, a convert to Islam previously known as Sandra Kellar... "

Anybody with experience knows that there is a no more insufferable zealot than the recently converted...

I don't think it's been said enough but this woman is an idiot who doesn't care a whit what Moslem women do and don't do, but cares for making a fuss.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Factual issue: Is wearing a full veil at all times clearly prescribed by a recognized religion?

That's what the statements about the practices in Islamic countries more relevent to this case than they normally would have been IMO.

[South killer]

I think its a barbaric practise but you must learn to undestand other cultures and let them chose their own way!!!!

[Al B. Sure!]

just out of curiousity, has it been publicized what sort of a muslim she is? sunni? shiite? black muslim?

[Space05us]

white liberal soccer mom muslim

[Dinner]

Originally posted by South killer
I think its a barbaric practise but you must learn to undestand other cultures and let them chose their own way!!!!

That is one of those nice ideas that gives everyone warm fuzzies but which, in practice, turns out to be extraordinarially stupid. I suppose we should have let the Germans choice there own way to deal with religious minorities? Opps, they did. The British were totally evil Christians who were pushing their values upon everyone else when the royal navy ended the tran-atlantic slave trade. Nope we can't have those damn WASPs telling people how to act. Coordinated action to end female sex slavery is imperialist so we'd better not try to deal with that issue. We don't want to offend anyone you know; we just want them to develop according to their own values.

Sorry South Killer but your moral relativist argument just doesn't hold water once you look at the fine details.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That's what the statements about the practices in Islamic countries more relevent to this case than they normally would have been IMO.

The problem there is that the practices are dictated by cultural norms and secular laws, as well as by religion. Only religious practice can be protected under the First Amendment*, so you have to confine yourself strictly to religious sources.

* Not getting into countervailing public interests (no pun intended) or balancing of rights, just talking about what can be protected.

[Whaleboy]

There is nothing specific in the Koran, it is merely a social custom. All I can say is, to each his (or her) own with regards to that society.