Even for our own protection?
I know years and years years ago when I turned 21 I had dyed my hair and also lost a good deal of weight. I went drinking that night, my appearance was altered enough I was not allowed to have a drink. Should we just throw out I.D. because we might offend a religion? Or should privileges associated with an I.D. like drinking, smoking and driving should remain privileges and if you don't want to participate in the requirements you are not able to participate in the privilege.
Lets say a woman says uncovering her face is against her religion should she still be allowed a drivers license? A man says he is part of a religion that does not allow for his picture to taken, should he be allowed a state I.D. without a picture and the privileges that come with it?
We are I.D. all the time for things from drug testing to driving; to the prevention of insurance fraud should these requirements only be demanded of those who are allowed? If we exempt a few because of religion or other reasons, is it equal treatment to all Americans and guest of this country? Because we might offend a person bases on religious freedom should be abolish photos I.D. and or allow the privileges to those who refuse? Now, taking away rights that is another issue, but I have never been asked for photo I.D. when I vote. *added*
Answer by Farmlady09 at 9:49 PM on Jun. 18, 2011
So NP, do you think we should all be fingerprinted to in order to buy alcohol, cigarettes, or get into a concert? That doesn't seem for efficient or cost effective to me.
I have no problem with people wearing whatever they want, but if they can't agree to a photo I.D. then I don't think they need to do the things the rest of us get carded for. There is a reason photo I.D.s are required for some things and the same rules should apply to everyone IMO.
Answer by asmcbride at 7:52 PM on Jun. 18, 2011
Answer by dullscissors at 7:18 PM on Jun. 18, 2011
Answer by calliesmommie at 7:21 PM on Jun. 18, 2011
The scanning and matching of your I.D. is only done when you get a new license. It would not be cheap (or convenient) to implement the same system in every venue that requires I.D. I have to disagree, we would see prices go up.
Answer by asmcbride at 8:33 PM on Jun. 18, 2011
Answer by HollyBoBolly at 7:34 PM on Jun. 18, 2011
Answer by HollyBoBolly at 8:01 PM on Jun. 18, 2011
I don't want to have to be fingerprinted like a common criminal so that others can have the luxury of the benefits of a photo ID without any form of recognizable photo. What next, a cartoon sketch in place of the photo. If you can't get your photo taken in a manner that will allow you to be identified (which is your choice) you don't get the benefits of having that ID card. I think we have become politically correct to the point of loosing our common sense.
Answer by scout_mom at 8:07 PM on Jun. 18, 2011
Answer by HollyBoBolly at 8:20 PM on Jun. 18, 2011
Here is the thing, all of those people you mentioned made a choice to be fingerprinted so they could take part in a "privilege" so to speak. If they didn't want to be fingerprinted then they couldn't get that gun, license, or job. Same as somebody not getting into a concert, because they didn't want to have their photo taken for an I.D.
On top of that, the equipment necessary for scanning fingerprints isn't exactly cheap. The cost of the equipment itself and then upkeep would be built into what we have to pay for services.
*Side note*- I am not the one that voted you down. While I don't agree, I do see where you are coming from and I have no need of the down vote button =)
Answer by asmcbride at 8:21 PM on Jun. 18, 2011
Check out some of the top posts today in Groups: