Tuesday, September 02, 2014

Is This Tyranny or Reasonable Government Regulation Needed For Public Safety?

Chase Culpepper 
Anderson, SC-- Chase Culpepper is an ordinary 16 year-old and like millions his age it’s time to apply for a driver’s license.
Well it turns out that Chase is not exactly ordinary but a male that apparently identifies as a female.  That may bring discomfort to a lot of people but not Chase or his mother.  He dresses as a girl and looks the part.
The lad completed and submitted the license application and passed both the written and actual driving test.  Now it was time to stand before the camera for that driver’s license photo. 
The motor vehicle clerk could not help but notice Culpepper’s face adorned with cosmetics and his application indicates he is male.  There is apparently a departmental directive that prohibits applicants from wearing a disguise.  Ignorance and the clerk's rather nasty attitude took over and the boy was told to wash his makeup off or not get a driver’s license.
The make up was no disguise like a fake beard, wig or mask.  The makeup did not really alter Culpepper’s appearance.  The other factor was that the lad like many girls did not want to be caught in public without it. 
The boy buckled to the clerk and washed his face but frankly with his blond tresses and female attire he still did not look much like a boy.  The license was issued. 
That’s not the end of this tale because the boy and his mother felt this action by the clerk was both discriminatory and insulting.  They have unsuccessfully demanded a new photo with the makeup. 
The argument here is quite simple.  Culpepper wears makeup all the time and without it he may appear different. He is who he is.
The funny part about this is that women are routinely seen in public with and without makeup and they for the most part are readily recognized as the same person. 
I think it’s fair to say if this were a woman not wearing makeup that same clerk would have thought nothing about taking the photo and issuing the license.
This was not about concern of a disguise but an effort to exercise a bogus authority over the young gender bender.  Pretending this was really out of concern for some kind of identity fraud to fool cops during a traffic stop is laughable.  
I guess we have forgotten that photos never appeared on our driver’s licenses until the late 1970s!  We had the photo technology for many decades before that but did not bother to use it!   
When did we give government the power to tell us how to dress, wear our hair or use makeup?  The answer is we did not! 
This was really about a clerk’s personal disapproval of Culpepper’s lifestyle.  You may not agree with Culpepper or his approving mother but when did we ever allow government to get involved in absolutely every aspect of our lifestyles?     
The motor vehicle clerk involved was unreasonable, petty and abusive.  Culpepper should get a new photograph the way he actually appears every day.  
Young Culpepper has since found a lawyer and filed a lawsuit.  As usual the taxpayers will get punished for the misdeeds of government officials.  
This is not about a lifestyle or morality but simple government tyranny. 
There is a way to end this kind of abuse and that's to strip government workers of the personal immunity that we mistakenly have given them. 

1 comment:

retired cap h said...

Speaking of technology, I believe that currently all 50 states have facial recognition software that analyzes their respective driver's license database for persons who attempt to commit identity fraud.The SC DMV clerk may have been confused by the make up being worn by the driver's license applicant, but the make-up would not be an issue identifying him with the facial recognition technology. We've come a long way baby.