This is bizarre to me especially since there's no details on the actual ruling, if there was one, or if it was just a settlement. On face value it seems that deeply held religious beliefs, whatever that is, can be used to justify any challenge to any government policy. Who judges what a deeply held religious belief is? There's a dangerous risk here cuz if you tell someone you don't believe what their espousing as their religion is a deeply held belief you're now in definite constitutional violation of the free exercise of religion. Constitution mentions nothing about a deeply held belief.
Just the idea though that having a religious belief means that the government cannot enforce any policy, that is religion agnostic, against you seems strange. Police identification photos have been a thing for a long time because you are a suspect in a crime and there has been probable cause for an arrest. Therefore they're taking an identifying photo along with other identifying information for you. So now in New York you can continue to cover your complete face to prevent facial identification and comparison if they need to apprehend you again because you didn't appear for the court case. What if you're deeply held religious belief is you don't want fingerprints taken, you don't want any photo taken at all, or your religious belief is you don't believe that the police have authority to arrest you? It can really go down crazy paths when you start taking this stance that those arrested with probable cause can cite police policies for identification as violating their religious beliefs.
It has long been held that the free exercise of religion is not without legal oversight. No religion that approves of human sacrifice would be allowed their free exercise of their religion in the United States. While that is an extreme example, it is not difficult to find more mundane examples.
There is no ruling. The article spells it out as a "settlement subject to being approved by the judge in that case". Generally, that means this is the police dept (and city that funds it) giving up and paying some money now to avoid a potentially much higher penalty if they let the case go to verdict. Occasionally this could reflect that the police dept - and city - truly recognize they were wrong, truly have changed policy and practices, and want to put the issue behind them. That is, in that case, there is no more need for a trial.
Either way the judge approval is, nominally, a safeguard against settlements that are too unjust or against public policy. The judge can reject the settlement even if both parties to the lawsuit truly want that outcome.
I agree that booking photos with the head nearly completely covered - all the way to completely covered - makes them useless. What I wonder is what is the workaround used by the police for people who invoke hijab.
It's mostly hair that's covered anyway right? (I'm not knowledgeable on this, so please correct me if I'm wrong)
I don't see why it's a problem. Even with hair covered, the photo would still reveal facial features for identification. Hair isn't particularly identifying since hair styles can be changed easily, so I don't see a problem with allowing hair to remain covered.
The face cannot be covered and if you're allowed to wear a hat for instance, it's not that the hijab of muslims covers anything that's needed for a positive visual ID.
However.. what strikes me most is that muslims seem to have issues with whatever ruling is present in a state or country. In Belgium, we have/had equal debates. Governmental workers that address public cannot wear visible religious symbols (christians can wear a cross around their neck for instance, but have to have it under their clothes), jews have to remove their kippah but lo and behold, muslims are the only community making a fuzz about the fact they have to remove their head scarf.
I think is more increasingly becoming a problem. Most muslim states puts the believe above the law, or at least adhere to the sharia where faith dictates the law. They seem to expect that countries respect their religion, even if it collides with current law and regulations.
Just the idea though that having a religious belief means that the government cannot enforce any policy, that is religion agnostic, against you seems strange. Police identification photos have been a thing for a long time because you are a suspect in a crime and there has been probable cause for an arrest. Therefore they're taking an identifying photo along with other identifying information for you. So now in New York you can continue to cover your complete face to prevent facial identification and comparison if they need to apprehend you again because you didn't appear for the court case. What if you're deeply held religious belief is you don't want fingerprints taken, you don't want any photo taken at all, or your religious belief is you don't believe that the police have authority to arrest you? It can really go down crazy paths when you start taking this stance that those arrested with probable cause can cite police policies for identification as violating their religious beliefs.
It has long been held that the free exercise of religion is not without legal oversight. No religion that approves of human sacrifice would be allowed their free exercise of their religion in the United States. While that is an extreme example, it is not difficult to find more mundane examples.