Assuming for a moment that a legitimate religious belief would be violated by compelling the Hutterite brethren to put a photograph on their drivers' licenses, would you still disagree with this decision?
The veracity of the religious belief seems to be what's getting most people's goats around here, but that really isn't what the case is about. The validity of the religious belief wasn't seriously challenged in court. This is a case where the government tried to use a regulation (not a statute) enacted under a law whose purpose is to regulate highways and roadways to impose the picture requirement. They tried to justify the the requirement by saying that the objective was to combat identity theft and prevent terrorism, among other things.
It seems like a pretty weak argument for the government to make. The effect on a person's religious freedoms in this situation is hugely negative while the resulting benefit to society is sketchy at best.
But fear not: the Court of Appeal left open the door for government to enact a statute specifically aimed at combating terrorism, identity theft and other ills. Such a statute, if it properly balances competing rights and interests, could be justified.
|