In the darkness the trees are full of starlight (henwy) wrote,
In the darkness the trees are full of starlight
henwy

  • Mood:

Behold, the power of idiocy

I can't believe this case is _still_ kicking around. I sincerely hope that this is the last I ever hear of this case of monumental stupidity and that someone gives this wench a punch in the face for subjecting us to it in the first place. What really terrifies me about this is...well, wait. I'll let you all read the article first before I continue my ranting.

Florida court upholds veil ban

Muslim woman sued over driver's license photo

Wednesday, September 7, 2005; Posted: 5:27 p.m. EDT (21:27 GMT)

DAYTONA BEACH, Florida (AP) -- A Muslim woman who, for religious reasons, wanted to wear a veil in her driver's license photo must follow a Florida law that requires a picture of her full face, a state appeals court ruled.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal upheld a 2003 ruling by an Orlando judge that Sultaana Freeman's right to free exercise of religion would not be burdened by the photo requirement.

"We recognized the tension created as a result of choosing between following the dictates of one's religion and the mandates of secular law," Appellate Judge Emerson R. Thompson Jr. wrote in Friday's opinion. "However, as long as the laws are neutral and generally applicable to the citizenry, they must be obeyed."

Freeman's attorney, Howard Marks, said Wednesday he was considering an appeal. He said the decision didn't respect the state constitution's guarantee of religious freedom.

The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles issued Freeman, 38, a license in 2001 showing her veiled with only her eyes visible, but later suspended it.

Freeman sued, claiming the suspension infringed upon her First Amendment rights.

In 2003, Circuit Judge Janet C. Thorpe agreed with authorities that letting people show only their eyes would undermine efforts to stop terrorists. That same year, Gov. Jeb Bush signed legislation requiring a picture of a driver's full face on a license.

The appeals court found enforcement of the law "did not compel Freeman to engage in conduct that her religion forbids -- her religion does not forbid all photographs."



So now that that's over, what worries me is the god damn appeals court ruled added this bit at the end so that it seems at least part of the ruling is based on the fact that islam dosen't forbid all photographs. WHO THE FUCK CARES if islam forbids photographs or thinks that the invention of the camera was really a satanic plot to take over the world. She should still have to take the god damn veil off if she wants to drive. Don't want to take it off because you're some sort of freakishly fugly person and hoards of taunting children tend to gather around you whenever you're in public? DON'T DRIVE. No one guarenteed you the rights of life, liberty, and the ability to speed around in a SUV you stupid bitch.
Subscribe

  • I always wanted to step on Nermal

    I was reminded earlier today (well, I guess that more accurately it was early yesterday) about a site that I had seen before about garfield comics.…

  • Sell direct and cut out the middleman

    As much as we often focus on large and successful corporate websites, it's interesting to think about how teh internets has allowed people to go out…

  • Oh the drama

    I ran across a couple of sites earlier that I'm finding to be incredibly amusing. The first is the Encyclopeida Dramatica and the second is…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 2 comments