10-09-2018, 01:59 PM
When I got my license I believe the policy was "no hats". Maybe it's "no head coverings" now.
"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."
Of course the problem is the slippery slope- If you allow one person to claim religious exemption for the photo for one head covering, you have to allow it for all head coverings (including MAGA hats) because religion is in the eye of the beholder. The other issue is that the photograph is to document one's identity based on one's appearance, difficult to do when one's head is covered.
The other slippery slope here is that some will argue that driving requires a license, the license requires a photograph of one's accurate likeness, and if one is unwilling to get the license including all that entails then they do not qualify for the privilege of driving.
Maybe if cars were around when the founding fathers were, they would have given us all the right to a driver's license. But that didn't happen, and nobody since then has taken up this cause (that I know of) either. I'm not sure how this is a first amendment issue because nobody is prohibiting the exercising of religion in a situation where having a driver's license isn't a right to begin with. People fail to obtain or maintain driver's licenses all the time. I can't get DUIs or ignore speed limits because of my religious convictions and maintain my license, nor can I refuse to have a photograph of my likeness taken under whatever circumstances the state dictates (to obtain a driving privilege). I'm not saying I agree with this, but this is where we are.
"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."
Of course the problem is the slippery slope- If you allow one person to claim religious exemption for the photo for one head covering, you have to allow it for all head coverings (including MAGA hats) because religion is in the eye of the beholder. The other issue is that the photograph is to document one's identity based on one's appearance, difficult to do when one's head is covered.
The other slippery slope here is that some will argue that driving requires a license, the license requires a photograph of one's accurate likeness, and if one is unwilling to get the license including all that entails then they do not qualify for the privilege of driving.
Maybe if cars were around when the founding fathers were, they would have given us all the right to a driver's license. But that didn't happen, and nobody since then has taken up this cause (that I know of) either. I'm not sure how this is a first amendment issue because nobody is prohibiting the exercising of religion in a situation where having a driver's license isn't a right to begin with. People fail to obtain or maintain driver's licenses all the time. I can't get DUIs or ignore speed limits because of my religious convictions and maintain my license, nor can I refuse to have a photograph of my likeness taken under whatever circumstances the state dictates (to obtain a driving privilege). I'm not saying I agree with this, but this is where we are.
