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.
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*.
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*.
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?
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.
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*.
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.
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.