Security vs. Religion

I know this is an old issue, but it still makes me upset.
The lady in Florida who got to have her driver's liscense picture taken with her veil on was wrong. It is a matter of security that we have those liscenses. We need to know who you are!! Even if you normally go around with your face covered, we need to know what that face looks like. Now anyone can use her liscense as long as they have their face covered by a veil. She stated that is was a violation of her religious beliefs that we were asking her to uncover her face for that photo. And if someone steals her purse, puts on a veil, and goes around committing unlawful acts, then what?
Am I totally wrong here? Does anyone understand what I am trying to say?

I understand what you are saying. If her religion means she cannot show her face, she has three options...

1. Invent some kind of camera that can see through her veil.
2. Give up on that religion and get a new one.
3. Do not drive a car, or possibly drive without a licencse (illegal).

Anyone else got an opinion on this? :-)

If that is true, Florida must have been annexed
by California.
:cool:

Exactly, the whole purpose of the picture is identification. Not only could they commit illegal acts, they could also purchase guns under her identity that they might not be permitted to under their actual identity.

rcgreen > where did you get that picture you have for your avatar, ive been trying to figure out what exactly it is.

I'd hate to point this out, but requiring that would mean you're intentionally violating the US constitution. Wearing a veil is a part of their religion, therefore it is perfectly acceptable under law. A good thing? Probably not, but change the constitution if you so fully believe that it's wrong that someone's religion would interfere with a photograph.

Another thing, you saw these pictures are used to determine who you are, but if a person is wearing a veil all the time anyways, you can't just spot them walking down the street, you'd have to stop them specifically.

That is from The Garden of Delights by Hieronymus Bosch

http://cgi.di.uoa.gr/~grad0146/English/delight_r.html
:cool:

I'd hate to point this out, but requiring that would mean you're intentionally violating the US constitution. Wearing a veil is a part of their religion, therefore it is perfectly acceptable under law. A good thing? Probably not, but change the constitution if you so fully believe that it's wrong that someone's religion would interfere with a photograph.

I know, and therein lies a problem.

///quote///I'd hate to point this out, but requiring that would mean you're intentionally violating the US constitution.///quote///

Ok guys,
you know me, I'm all for freedom of religion. But just curious, what specifically in the Constitution says
that such a person would not have to have their picture made?

preacherman...they didn't have pictures back then. Doesn't it also say somewhere in the Constitution that we have these freedoms as long as they don't interfere with the safety and security of others?
I am, of course, paraphrasing.

Hi,
Lafs, I know they didn't have photographs back then, I was just asking specifically what part of
the law would requiring her to have her picture made violate.