Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The agency refused, citing DMV policy saying that "at no time will an applicant be photographed when it appears that he or she is purposely altering his or her appearance so that the photo would misrepresent his or her identity."
I don't think Chase is in violation of this policy at all. It sounds like they routinely dress femininely, including make-up, and that is how they wanted their picture taken. I'd say diverting from that is doing far more to "misrepresent their identity" than anything else.
Hopefully Chase can get a better ID picture, soon.
He is a boy dressed as a girl. An officer would have a hard time telling the person in the picture is him.
This ^
If you're gay then your gay. Fine. Problems can arise when you're dressed and portray yourself to be of the opposite sex when its time to be identified. I side with the DMV.
Lets also remember that driving is a privilage not a right.
Yep. Its no different than asking Sikh's to remove their head dress thing. Or jews to remove their skull cap etc...he is just trying to make a stink about it..they need to see your actual face marks,scars,tattoos,etc hair color,eye color...Stop trying to cause a big scene and cost the state money for not bending to your will.
It sounds as though the "natural appearance" of the teen in the story is anything *but* natural, and his/her/it's preferred appearance is rooted in a mental illness which should be treated rather than accomodated as normal. Or just refuse to grant him/her/it a license until he/she/it complies. He/She/It probably shouldn't be driving as there are enough crazies on the road as it is.
Women wearing make-up isn't natural either. So this kid's got a pretty good case until the SCDOT bans all makeup from driver's license pictures, regardless of what you personally may think.
IMO, let him/her take the picture however he/she so chooses. if pulled over by the cops and the person is not recognizable to the officer, don't be surprised if there's an arrest. there's a reason why you need a picture on your license.
Yep. Its no different than asking Sikh's to remove their head dress thing. Or jews to remove their skull cap etc...he is just trying to make a stink about it..they need to see your actual face marks,scars,tattoos,etc hair color,eye color...Stop trying to cause a big scene and cost the state money for not bending to your will.
If it is so hard to tell what a person looks like when they have some lipstick on then why does the state allow women to wear make up in their photos? Also unlike a full head covering or even a head dress like the one sikhs wear eye shadow doesn't cover up a basic facial feature. Hair, eyes, and the full face are still visible even if s/he has make up on and you know it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.