Security vs. Religion

[Path]

If one's religion dictates that they wear a veil in public, and considering that a license photo is a public likeness, then the state has no right to request a public photograph without the veil. The photo isn't the question. Identification by means of a driver's license is an extension of it's purpose, not the purpose in itself. The license indicates that the driver has passed tests indicating the ability to drive, and also paid the regulatory fees and taxes associated.

Proper identification involves much more than simply viewing the photo on a license. The license gives other identifying traits. The picture is simply reinforced evidence that the one carrying the license is or isn't the true licensee.

The true likeness of the lady in public is with a veil. To force a photo without would not yield a true public likeness.

It could be that a driver's license is simply a poor means of identification. Requiring absolute and immediate proof of identity through any means is much too near a police state for me. When a "real" need exists, it's not a driver's license used anyway.

[lakay]

I agree with xmadness. The purpose of a drivers licence is for identifying the bearer as the owner of the license. Having a drivers license gives you the right to drive a car or the like. If the picture on it is obscured or not the clear, then somebody else might steal her license and use it to her detriment. Having a clear picture on the license is for the advantage of the owner of the license because she knows that its hard to impersonate her than just relying on numbers alone.

[Dr Toker]

What about the rastafarian who's religion involves smoking Ganja? What about him? Freedom of religion should have been defined better. Freedom of religion, as long as we agree with it, is more like it.

[lafs]

Dr Toker-
exactly

[chsh]

Well personally, whether it's agreed to or not doesn't matter, the freedom to freely practice religion is protected by the constitution.

From: http://memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Then the question becomes the rather troubling question of how do you define religion? In this sense, are you limiting it to the major religions, or are you limiting it to organised religions?

To me, religion is a personal thing, and it would be tough to draw a boundary, because nobody else's rights can infringe on your own. In other words, it is not anyone else's right to take this woman's picture without her veil on, but it IS her right to have that veil on.

Keep in mind, I'm arguing the LAW here, and this isn't necessarily my opinion.