Emergency Mustelid Hologram
- Sep 20, 2018
- Coonspiracy Central, Noonkkot
- SL Rez
- Joined SLU
- Sep 2009
- SLU Posts
How would you feel about a rule that said drivers license photos merely had to be recognizable as the person as they normally present themselves?How would you feel about a rule that said all men had to grow beards and wear some sort of head covering for their driving licence photos?
Oh yeh, we actually agree, so what the fuck are you complaining to me about?To my mind, the point of having a photo in your driving licence is that it represents your normal appearance. So unless there's some good reason not to, why not simply have the rule that people's images in their driving licence should reflect that.
The rule in the US is explicitly about *religious* head covering. That's the rule *I'M* complaining about. If it wasn't religious-based, then why on *earth* do you think I'd have any reason or wish to object?
Oh, and, hey, LET ME FUCKING REPEAT THIS BIT which I know you actually read because you quoted the last line:
Argent said:Because so many religious beliefs are not as benign as "I want to wear a colander on my head".
Things like "I don't want my employees to get birth control on their insurance even if it doesn't cost me any more".
This shit is actually built into law. Look up "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993"
I say NO. Just no. No special rights for beliefs just because someone claims some god dictated it.