Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-21-2016, 02:41 PM
 
3,298 posts, read 2,473,727 times
Reputation: 5517

Advertisements

Deja vu all over again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-21-2016, 02:41 PM
 
Location: Home is Where You Park It
23,856 posts, read 13,743,685 times
Reputation: 15482
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981 View Post
I know in California statue requires a full-face photograph which displays the facial features (eyes, nose, and mouth). California residents are not required to remove any headgear that is part of his/her normal identification or worn due to religious beliefs such as the turban.

So If once a Marine always Marine, there is no former Marine, There is no ex Marine, once a Marine, always a Marine, Yes, USMC IS this veteran's identity. Judging by the photo, he displayed facial features and he did not violate any rules.

I see no problem with his photo, nor do I believe he viewed himself as God like some posters suggested.
Agreed.

As long as the face is fully visible, who cares what people wear on their heads? It requires all of 20 minutes to change your hair's appearance.

That said, if a state bans head coverings in DMV photos, there should be NO exceptions for religion. I could *maybe* see an exception for people undergoing chemotherapy. *MAYBE*.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2016, 02:43 PM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
39,222 posts, read 27,592,812 times
Reputation: 16061
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg View Post
Agreed.

As long as the face is fully visible, who cares what people wear on their heads? It requires all of 20 minutes to change your hair's appearance.

That said, if a state bans head coverings in DMV photos, there should be NO exceptions for religion. I could *maybe* see an exception for people undergoing chemotherapy. *MAYBE*.
agreed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2016, 02:46 PM
 
56,988 posts, read 35,193,725 times
Reputation: 18824
Quote:
Originally Posted by baxendale View Post
Marines remove their covers when indoors unless they are on duty (wearing a duty belt)
Exactly! But lames applaud this nonsense because they don't know better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2016, 02:49 PM
 
32,516 posts, read 37,168,702 times
Reputation: 32581
Fab. One more guy holding up the line at the DMV*.



*Which, in the state of California, is the sixth level of hell.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2016, 02:54 PM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
39,222 posts, read 27,592,812 times
Reputation: 16061
Quote:
Originally Posted by baxendale View Post
Marines remove their covers when indoors unless they are on duty (wearing a duty belt)
Not that type of "covers". That hat he wears is not a Marine Corps cover. sorry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2016, 02:57 PM
 
17,273 posts, read 9,556,326 times
Reputation: 16468
Here's what: a Sikh or a muslim woman wearing her hijab will be wearing that in public at all times. You'll never see them without. Therefore, if someone wears a head piece 24/7, or at least out in public 100%, that's what they should be photographed in. Does the gentleman in this story wear that hat 24/7 in public? If the answer is a resounding yes, then he should be photographed in it. If no, then not. How likely is it that a person could identify a muslim woman if she's not wearing her hijab based on her license photo if she's wearing the hijab in it, and vice versa?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2016, 02:59 PM
 
Location: San Francisco, CA
449 posts, read 495,180 times
Reputation: 496
Really pathetic effort to get attention. The simple way to correct this problem is to have a list of recognized religions, so not every nut tries to claim religious exemption. Besides, that man is probably an anchor baby and if so should have his illegitimate citizenship revoked and deported to the country of his parents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2016, 03:00 PM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
39,222 posts, read 27,592,812 times
Reputation: 16061
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg View Post
Agreed.

As long as the face is fully visible, who cares what people wear on their heads? It requires all of 20 minutes to change your hair's appearance.

That said, if a state bans head coverings in DMV photos, there should be NO exceptions for religion. I could *maybe* see an exception for people undergoing chemotherapy. *MAYBE*.
The bolded, isn't that the truth?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2016, 03:07 PM
 
Location: San Francisco, CA
449 posts, read 495,180 times
Reputation: 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefragile View Post
Here's what: a Sikh or a muslim woman wearing her hijab will be wearing that in public at all times. You'll never see them without. Therefore, if someone wears a head piece 24/7, or at least out in public 100%, that's what they should be photographed in. Does the gentleman in this story wear that hat 24/7 in public? If the answer is a resounding yes, then he should be photographed in it. If no, then not. How likely is it that a person could identify a muslim woman if she's not wearing her hijab based on her license photo if she's wearing the hijab in it, and vice versa?
That's actually a good argument that disproves the elderly man's claim that his hat is apart of his religious garment. Besides, Sikhism and Islam are well-known and established religions with long histories. Some nutter claiming the USMC hat is apart of his religion is just making a joke of the religious exemption law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:01 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top