Pastafarian wins right to wear strainer in driving licence photo

[The Brain]

Isn't a Yarmulke like a tiny thing on the back on your head?  Isn't that like caring what kind of shoes one is wearing in an ID photo?  I mean you cannot see the Yarmulke right?

As I have said the headgear ban is unnecessary. Which of course is why there are religious exceptions at all.

[LaCroix]

Isn't a Yarmulke like a tiny thing on the back on your head?  Isn't that like caring what kind of shoes one is wearing in an ID photo?  I mean you cannot see the Yarmulke right?

yarmulke = only an example. insert any religious gear that might interfere with identifying a person. what if someone used a really small pasta strainer?

[Valmy]

yarmulke = only an example. insert any religious gear that might interfere with identifying a person. what if someone used a really small pasta strainer?

So you used something that does not cover up the face or can be seen from the front at all as an example of something that might interfere with identifying a person?  If a muslim woman wants to wear a head scarf that cannot be seen in an ID photo then...well how would it be relevent at all?

[LaCroix]

i threw in an example of religious apparel allowed in photo ids to get at the general idea. if you cannot understand my point and instead stick to the semantics of attacking the throw-away example, then that is not my fault

[crazy canuck]

Joan, this is a relevant point in a world where muslims are tying to let women use faceveils on photos. He's not just being a dick.

Are women being allowed to use face veils on photos?  The only case I am aware of in the States denied this.  Perhaps Austria differs.  But if preventing that outcome really was his objective, he actually moved the ball backwards.

This is only one of many instances of religious followers calling for exemptions. A few local examples: calls for segregated public swimming pools, exemption for girls from sport classes, the niqab school issue, refusal to let male doctors see female patients, disruption on factory production due to prayer ...

The thin-skinned schmucks are not the ones pointing out how fucked up it is that you have two different standards depending on whether you still believe in Santa or not. They are the ones asking for them in the first place.

Ok, so you are saying that only one belief system is acceptable in society and anyone who deviates from that one acceptable system of belief should always have to conform to the majority belief system whenever their beliefs conflict with that of the majority even if there could be a reasonable accomodation of those beliefs.  Is that really what you are saying? If not please explain further. 

[crazy canuck]

I'll try to walk you through it.

If you limit your rules to ensuring what's actually important for the photo to serve its purpose as an aid to identification then any religious objection can be met with "sorry take it or leave it, we find it reasonable to demand ID photos on driver's licenses".

Ok, excellent start.  Now draft such a rule.  You said it would be easy.  Go for it.

[Valmy]

i threw in an example of religious apparel allowed in photo ids to get at the general idea. if you cannot understand my point and instead stick to the semantics of attacking the throw-away example, then that is not my fault

I did not understand why you chose that example I was not attacking you for semantics or read your mind as a throw-away example.  This is because a Yarmulke strikes me as an example of something that CAN be worn in a photo ID.  Why would that be a slippery slope?

I also do not recall saying anything was 'your fault' or blamed you for anything.  I just did not understand because of the example you used.  But feel free to take that as an attack.

[LaCroix]

Ok, so you are saying that only one belief system is acceptable in society and anyone who deviates from that one acceptable system of belief should always have to conform to the majority belief system whenever their beliefs conflict with that of the majority even if there could be a reasonable accomodation of those beliefs.  Is that really what you are saying? If not please explain further.

The whole point of the exercise is to mock religion and the manner in which genuine religious belief is accomodated under the law.

[LaCroix]

I did not understand why you chose that example I was not attacking you for semantics or read your mind as a throw-away example.  This is because a Yarmulke strikes me as an example of something that CAN be worn in a photo ID.  Why would that be a slippery slope?

I also do not recall saying anything was 'your fault' or blamed you for anything.  I just did not understand because of the example you used.  But feel free to take that as an attack.

ah, but then wouldn't my response- "what if someone used a really small pasta strainer" clarify the confusion? neither the yarmulke or this really small pasta strainer would then obstruct identifying the person in the picture

[Berkut]

I'll try to walk you through it.

If you limit your rules to ensuring what's actually important for the photo to serve its purpose as an aid to identification then any religious objection can be met with "sorry take it or leave it, we find it reasonable to demand ID photos on driver's licenses".

Ok, excellent start.  Now draft such a rule.  You said it would be easy.  Go for it.

You are not allowed to wear anything during a photo id which in any way obstructs the full view of the face and head.

or

You are not allowed to wear anything on the head during the photo which would make identification more difficult.

if you want something less restrictive.

[The Minsky Moment]

This is only one of many instances of religious followers calling for exemptions. A few local examples: calls for segregated public swimming pools, exemption for girls from sport classes, the niqab school issue, refusal to let male doctors see female patients, disruption on factory production due to prayer ...

So judgment calls have to made that balance the individual interest in practicing their faith vs. the societal interest at stake.

[crazy canuck]

I'll try to walk you through it.

If you limit your rules to ensuring what's actually important for the photo to serve its purpose as an aid to identification then any religious objection can be met with "sorry take it or leave it, we find it reasonable to demand ID photos on driver's licenses".

Ok, excellent start.  Now draft such a rule.  You said it would be easy.  Go for it.

You are not allowed to wear anything during a photo id which in any way obstructs the full view of the face and head.

or

You are not allowed to wear anything on the head during the photo which would make identification more difficult.

if you want something less restrictive.

All you have really done there is add subjectivity into an objective test.  You have simply changed the fight from one of accomodation alone to one of accomodation and a fight over whether a particular garment/hat falls within the law.

From a business development point of vew I wish more drafters were like you. Lots of room for litigation with those sorts of legal tests.

[crazy canuck]

Ok, so you are saying that only one belief system is acceptable in society and anyone who deviates from that one acceptable system of belief should always have to conform to the majority belief system whenever their beliefs conflict with that of the majority even if there could be a reasonable accomodation of those beliefs.  Is that really what you are saying? If not please explain further.

The whole point of the exercise is to mock religion and the manner in which genuine religious belief is accomodated under the law.

[Iormlund]

Ok, so you are saying that only one belief system is acceptable in society and anyone who deviates from that one acceptable system of belief should always have to conform to the majority belief system whenever their beliefs conflict with that of the majority even if there could be a reasonable accomodation of those beliefs.  Is that really what you are saying? If not please explain further.

Lack of a belief is NOT a belief in itself.

This is only one of many instances of religious followers calling for exemptions. A few local examples: calls for segregated public swimming pools, exemption for girls from sport classes, the niqab school issue, refusal to let male doctors see female patients, disruption on factory production due to prayer ...

So judgment calls have to made that balance the individual interest in practicing their faith vs. the societal interest at stake.

Or maybe we could simply be all equal under the law. I have shocking ideas, I know.

[LaCroix]

aren't you denying a belief system (stretching this a bit) in this case by attacking this "pastafarian" protest through the argument that accommodations should be made for one group but not another?