• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Teen sues DMV after being told to remove makeup

a person does not have a right to a license to drive.....he may have a privilege of government, by equality under the law.

however equality under does not guarantee a person such a privilege, if that person does not conform to certain regulation's for receiving the privilege..

True, but... just because you can enact a rule/law does not automatically make said rule/law reasonable and rational, and people do have the right to complain about it and seek to change it.
 
My first Wife and I lived next door to 5 guys that wanted to be women and prostituted themselves in hopes of finding the sugar daddy who would make it so.

Don't tell me about abnormal.

And they business man who lived down the street from me was arrested for molesting children. Therefor all businessmen are child molesters.

I swear, I couldn't make worse arguments than you if I tried.
 
True, but... just because you can enact a rule/law does not automatically make said rule/law reasonable and rational, and people do have the right to complain about it and seek to change it.

very true.

one of the problems in America today is the understanding of rights......

rights per the constitution are natural rights....

privileges per the constitution have been renamed civil rights/legal rights...and people associated the word right, as something which cannot be taken away.

since government dispenses privileges they can take them away if the person does not conform to the law, to get the privilege.
 
I've had enough of your insults.

Don't blame the messenger. It's your fault for making terrible arguments. Not mine.

The best thing about this thread is how much you've been judging this kid and other people like him and then you have a quote from Jesus in your signature. I think he said something about judging others. I would ask you but I doubt you've read beyond your one quote...
 
a person does not have a right to a license to drive.....he may have a privilege of government, by equality under the law.

however equality under does not guarantee a person such a privilege, if that person does not conform to certain regulation's for receiving the privilege..

Equality guarantees a person must be treated equally to everyone else up to the point where the state can show that a specific restriction furthers (in this case) an important state interest. This is why a DMV cannot have different testing rules for different "types" of people based on sex, religion, race, nationality, or any other protected (or really in general) classification. 14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause.
 
My first Wife and I lived next door to 5 guys that wanted to be women and prostituted themselves in hopes of finding the sugar daddy who would make it so.

Don't tell me about abnormal.

Has absolutely nothing to do with this case. Plenty of things are abnormal. I consider myself abnormal and I have no issues with being transgendered (I am a bit gender nonconforming, but only in certain aspects of my life/behavior, not a lot and not all the time).
 
Equality guarantees a person must be treated equally to everyone else up to the point where the state can show that a specific restriction furthers (in this case) an important state interest. This is why a DMV cannot have different testing rules for different "types" of people based on sex, religion, race, nationality, or any other protected (or really in general) classification. 14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause.


I will agree ,however if the person, and I am not saying this person... were to do things which change their looks to a good degree, I believe the state could revoke the privilege,
 
I will agree ,however if the person, and I am not saying this person... were to do things which change their looks to a good degree, I believe the state could revoke the privilege,

I have no issue with that so long as it is applied equally to all. But I also think there should have to be proof that the person intentionally changed their looks and intentionally failed to get their license changed. It should not be simply "well he dressed like a girl today and is dressed like a guy now. The clothes do not make the person who they are, even their sex/gender.
 
Don't blame the messenger. It's your fault for making terrible arguments. Not mine.

The best thing about this thread is how much you've been judging this kid and other people like him and then you have a quote from Jesus in your signature. I think he said something about judging others. I would ask you but I doubt you've read beyond your one quote...
My argument was made on logic while yours was based on feelings and emotion.

Shove your insinuations.
 
My argument was made on logic while yours was based on feelings and emotion.

Shove your insinuations.

No, your argument is based on bias. Unless women/girls are required to remove their makeup as well, which can be used to hide some of their features, then a boy wearing makeup or dressing like a girl is not a legitimate disguise. Notice they didn't make him change his hairstyle, which is very feminine or change his clothing or accessories, which too were very feminine, proving that it was gender discrimination based on the clerk's feelings alone about a boy wearing makeup that led to him being asked to remove it, not the belief that he was trying to "disguise" himself as a girl.
 
Oh hell. make everyone remove makeup and show up with their natural haircolor.:lamo

Seriously, if this is how he normally presents himself. I have no issue.
 
No, your argument is based on bias. Unless women/girls are required to remove their makeup as well, which can be used to hide some of their features, then a boy wearing makeup or dressing like a girl is not a legitimate disguise. Notice they didn't make him change his hairstyle, which is very feminine or change his clothing or accessories, which too were very feminine, proving that it was gender discrimination based on the clerk's feelings alone about a boy wearing makeup that led to him being asked to remove it, not the belief that he was trying to "disguise" himself as a girl.

Regardless, it's their call and driving is a privilege.
 
Regardless, it's their call and driving is a privilege.

No, it simply is not "their call", not totally. They have to show that it was because he was trying to "disguise" himself rather than just because he is a guy wearing makeup and dressed like a woman. He has a right to wear the clothes and accessories that they allow women to wear for their ID photo, otherwise it is gender discrimination.
 
No, it simply is not "their call", not totally. They have to show that it was because he was trying to "disguise" himself rather than just because he is a guy wearing makeup and dressed like a woman. He has a right to wear the clothes and accessories that they allow women to wear for their ID photo, otherwise it is gender discrimination.
What gender would that be?
 
...which is completely irrelevant to the discussion. No one questions that it is their call. The question here is... Should they make that call?

This might be a good case from a blood draw and DNA recording. If he wants to play this "guess' my gender" BS, other means of identification should be necessary.
 
What gender would that be?

The government cannot treat the genders differently without showing an important state interest involved. Since it is not illegal for a man to ever wear makeup, then it cannot be said that any "male" that wears makeup or even dresses or acts like a woman is disguising himself just because others want to hold onto gender stereotypes. Gender stereotyping in no way furthers an important state interest.
 
This might be a good case from a blood draw and DNA recording. If he wants to play this "guess' my gender" BS, other means of identification should be necessary.

Show me the law that says he can't wear makeup or dress like a woman because of his DNA or even his sex being "male".
 
The government cannot treat the genders differently without showing an important state interest involved. Since it is not illegal for a man to ever wear makeup, then it cannot be said that any "male" that wears makeup or even dresses or acts like a woman is disguising himself just because others want to hold onto gender stereotypes. Gender stereotyping in no way furthers an important state interest.

That state interest would be....security and integrity of the system. It's not difficult.
 
That state interest would be....security and integrity of the system. It's not difficult.

Not good enough since there is no laws that prevent a man from wearing makeup or dressing like a woman so it clearly is not a disguise just for a guy to wear makeup. That is an excuse.
 
That state interest would be....security and integrity of the system. It's not difficult.

Isn't that kind of vague, like when people use phrases such as "for your protection", which sounds good but usually doesn't mean anything? So, could you expand on that? Shouldn't be too difficult. Thanks.
 
Not good enough since there is no laws that prevent a man from wearing makeup or dressing like a woman so it clearly is not a disguise just for a guy to wear makeup. That is an excuse.

It trumps his silly fetish.
 
It trumps his silly fetish.

No, actually it doesn't. You can't prove that he was trying to "disguise" his real appearance just because he was wearing makeup. You are making an assumption based solely on your personal bias against guys wearing makeup or dressing like a woman.
 
No, actually it doesn't. You can't prove that he was trying to "disguise" his real appearance just because he was wearing makeup. You are making an assumption based solely on your personal bias against guys wearing makeup or dressing like a woman.

You mean my personal experience with guys dressing up as women. Now who's assuming?
 
You mean my personal experience with guys dressing up as women. Now who's assuming?

Which doesn't mean crap. You are projecting whatever nonsense you believe about men wearing women's clothing or accessories on everyone. The plain truth is that most men who wear women's clothing and/or accessories, including makeup and/or hairstyles, are not trying to disguise themselves. They are simply being themselves.

I have brothers who wear women's clothing, one is transgendered and will one day legally be a woman, the other merely likes the feel of women's clothing on his skin (says it feels better than men's). They aren't trying to disguise themselves, they are simply being who they are. I know many men who wear makeup.

Especially in this case. It wouldn't make any sense for a man to wear women's clothing to get their state ID/driver's license done as a "disguise". What kind of disguise would that be? Especially the way this kid was wearing his.
 
Back
Top Bottom