Despite the fact that it is against their religious beliefs to do so, and that the American constitution guarantees free exercise of religion?
Are you playing Devil's Advocate? Or are you just resorting to semantics to try and make a opposig viewpoint? What you said is sheer and utter nonsense Funky.
To clarify for you, yes, she has the absolute right to practice her religion. Yes, the United States Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. But if those beliefs conflict with the law, then the law takes priority. There are also laws of the land that must be abided by, and these laws supercede one's personal right to religion.
As an example, Mohammed Atta and other hijackers/extremists had the right to practice Islam. Even if it is extreme fundamental Islam which indoctrinates in them that they are the only true religion, God uses them as a vassal for his work, and unbelievers should be condemned to death, if that is their belief. However, taking action is another matter entirely. America guarantees the free exercise of Islam and any other religion. But by your logic that justifies their hideous acts on 9/11/01? Because of the free exercise of religion?
Likewise, this woman has the right to practice Islam. Period. However, driving is a privilege, not a right. Getting a permanent driver's license requires having your picture taken for photo identification. She knew this. The police use photo ID to identify people in traffic stops and other incidents. She was unwilling to comply with the laws and requirements to get a driver's license. Therefore, she forfeits her right to one. I live here in Orlando where this is happening, and in fact the trial was going on today as we speak with ongoing news coverage. The court building is about 10 minutes from my home. It is highly suspect that she was arrested two years ago for domestic battery and had a mug shot taken in prison with no veil. I suppose that did not violate her religious beliefs? Surely you can see the double-standard here.
If she were to win this case (which I believe she will not) it would establish a precedent that it is acceptable for people to abuse religious freedoms so as to skirt around the law. In our day and age, this is simply unacceptable.
Criminals would next be saying they cannot be fingerprinted or identified because it goes against their religious tenets.
Give me a break.