Alabama ACLU v. Lee County
The ACLU of Alabama filed a lawsuit after a Christian woman was forced to remove her headscarf in her driver’s license photograph. The client, Yvonne Allen, believes that wearing a headscarf is a crucial part of her religion, and that she must not reveal her hair to others, and although exceptions are made when taking drivers license pictures to Muslim women, this exception as not given to Allen. During the argument at the DMV, a staff member attempted to justify the actions of Lee Country by comparing both of their christian beliefs. She compared her christian beliefs to that of Allen’s, and stated that since she felt no need to cover her hair, neither should Allen. The ACLU argues that the county's restriction to Allen is in violation of Alabama state regulation, and the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause. This brings up not only issues of the discriminatory actions against a Christian’s ability to lawfully wear a headscarf in their driver's license, but also begs the question as to what the compelling interest might be to not allow an exemption for all that believe it is required under their religious beliefs.
The ACLU is addressing the main issue at hand, which is that Allen’s First Amendment right to freely exercise her religion, which in this case means wearing her headscarf and protecting her hair, is being violated by the county. In this case, there are two issues at hand: the fact that an exemption has been made to Muslim women, and the fact even if there was no exemption given, the County would still be in violation of Allen’s constitutional rights. The staff member's argument that Christianity does not require the wearing of headscarves brings up the issue of state interpretation of sincerity. This is dangerous grounds to operate on, as the interpretation of the sincerity of one's beliefs can lead to a slippery slope and provide future opportunities for other state entities to make these interpretations. There is also the issue of religious discrimination against her proclaimed Christian belief. The County argues that the exemption is only to be provided to Muslim women. This raises issues of religious inequality, which under the constitution, do not exist. Under the constitution, all religions, including Islam and Christianity, are to be treated equally, with no one religion receiving preferential treatment over another.
The ACLU makes the argument addressing the issue of the discriminatory practice. Senior staff attorney for the ACLU argues, “The county’s policy is puzzling. There is absolutely no reason to restrict accommodations for religious headgear to certain religions. The Constitution protects both Christians and Muslims and, indeed, people of all faiths.” The ACLU also touches on what believes to the lack of existence of a compelling state interest in this situation. Director of the ACLU Women’s Rights Project states, “For many women like Ms. Allen, headscarves are a religious obligation, and wearing them imposes no harm on others.” The ACLU believes that there is no evidence of an imminent threat posed by allowing subjects to take drivers license photos with a headscarf if their religion requires them to do so.
The issue at hand is extremely important, as it addresses one’s ability to freely express their religious beliefs through the use of a head scarf, which although it may seem uncommon, is crucial to some religions throughout the US. I believe that there is certainly an easy, and right decision to be made here. Not allowing the religious exemption provided to Muslim women to be utilized by Christian women, and any being who must wear a headscarf would be a clear and obvious violation of their First Amendment rights. This type of unconstitutional, and discriminatory behavior cannot be allowed in the US. All religions be treated equally, and the religious beliefs of all US citizens must be respected under the US constitution. To those that say that allowing the exemption for Christian women would lead to a slippery slope where large numbers of people would soon be asking for accommodations due to a “religious belief”, I say that this argument is not valid. Not only is this an unrealistic and unlikely outcome, but one could argue that the slippery slope idea is more applicable in the opposite manner, and that restricting Allen’s religious belief would open the door to more restrictions on the wearing of headscarves in driver’s license pictures. In addition to this, the state has no compelling interest in denying Allen’s request in this situation. Since the accommodation has already been made to Muslim women, a group often criticized and inaccurately deemed “threatening” because of religious stereotypes connected to terrorism, one cannot argue that Allen poses any sort of threat here. I believe that an accommodation must be made for Allen, and for all religious beliefs that require the wearing of a headscarf.
Sources:
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/christian-woman-must-be-allowed-wear-religious-headscarf-driver-license-photo-aclu
9 comments:
I agree with the points you have made. First, I do not see a valid reason for disallowing Christian women to cover their hair if they so believe as crucial to religion. Supporting this notion is the fact that Muslim women are granted this exception, and as you note, this group has historically been monitored disproportionately as posing security threats. Moreover, if these women are adamant about wearing headscarves in ID photos, I can imagine that any time their ID is needed (say, getting pulled over) they will also be wearing the headscarves. Hence, the photo will reflect how they truly look to the public. Therefore, I do not see any danger in allowing the headscarf in the photo. To limit this exemption to Muslim women would involve the court to rule upon the validity and sincerity of the Christian woman's belief, which is to some, unconstitutional. Overall, I believe that the ACLU will win this case due to the lack of state interest in denying protections to Christian women (additionally, she is affiliated with a major religion that the court typically favors).
I do not see any problem with the woman covering her hair if she thinks it is a significant part of her religion. Bella's point about them most likely always wearing the headscarves is very important. They will look the same as they do in their ID photo, which gives makes me think it is not a problem. This does not present a great enough danger to society, and there is a clear representation of discrimination at hand. Since the exemption has been made for other religions, I don't understand why this would not be allowed.
I agree that the state is infringing upon the woman's First Amendment rights. I don't see why, if this exception has been made in the past, why no exception should be made for this woman. I don't think there is enough compelling state interest in this case. If their evidence for compelling state interest is because of stereotypical beliefs, that is questionable. This woman and her headscarf pose little danger, and there is no evidence of her being a threat in anyway. It should not be a problem for the woman to be allowed to wear her headscarf in her driver's license photo, if she believes it is important to her religion and it isn't causing anyone harm.
I agree with your position that Allen should be allowed to wear a headscarf. If there have been exceptions made for Muslim women, Allen should be granted the same exception for neutrality between religious beliefs. However, I disagree with your perspective on the slippery slope argument. In the US, our primary form of identification is a driver's license. I do worry that this would open up controversy such as if someone wanted to wear a colander on their head. It is also surprising to me that she was denied the ability to wear a headscarf based on the Christian beliefs of someone else in the office. As we have discussed several times in class, under the First Amendment, Americans are free to interpret and practice their regions freely. Thus, one woman's interpretation of Christianity should not determine another woman's interpretation of Christianity.
I agree with the points you have presented as well as the comments in this thread. Under the First Amendment as well as government neutrality, the government should not do anything that advances or inhibits any religion nor favor some religions over others. It would be hard for the DMV to make a case in regard to an individuals interpretation of what their religion deems a fundamental aspect of its practice; especially since a comparable exemption for religious attire has been made for an individual of the Muslim faith. While it is somewhat questionable at what point is the line drawn with allowing requested attire to be worn, this is not a strict military setting where you knowingly give up a degree of your rights to advance an institutions goal. This is rather, again, a drivers license photo where an alike exemption has been granted in the past. Especially in regard to individuals inalienable religious rights that have been previously accommodated, the County will have a harder time defending their case.
I would side with Allen in this case because no state official has the jurisdiction to deem what is and isn't religiously sincere. while it isn't explicitly stated that women should cover themselves in Christianity, it is softly implied, and if one wants to integrate that practice because of their interpretation of scripture on the issue. This case specifically reminds me of U.S. v. Seeger, because while the defendant's beliefs are out of the norm, the question is if they are valid or not? and if they so belive truly that this practice is something they are called to do, and if it causes no harm then it is not up to any state official to deem "authentic"
This seems like a fairly cut and dry case. The government should not have the ability to decide what religious beliefs are valid and which are not. If the exception allowing Muslim women to wear a head scarf in their drivers license photo has been made, then it must be extended to anyone that wants to claim it. Furthermore, I do not see a compelling state interest to regulate this action. If this religious belief is that she may not show her hair to anyone, and the purpose of the photo is to allow a police officer to identify her, it seems like it would make the officer's job easier if the scarf is on in the picture.
I believe that this women should not be forced to choose receiving a drivers license and fulfilling her religious conviction. I believe that forcing her to take off her headscarf for a photo is not right. Especially because there have been exceptions in the past with Muslim women I believe that Yvonne should have been given the same liberties. I also do not think it is right that the staff member tried to justify her actions with christian beliefs because they are two different religions and because Yvonne is not Christian she is not going to act as a Christian would.
I am going to agree with most of the comments above. The DMV should not be ale to discriminate against her and she should be allowed to wear her head covering. They have already issued religious exemptions before and there is no compelling interest to not do the same here. Additionally, they should not be able to question the sincerity or validity of her beliefs. Regardless of how she chooses to interpret her religion, there is not a good enough compelling state interest for her First amendment right to be violated here.
Post a Comment