A federal court has declared North Carolina's voter ID law unconstitutional because it is discriminatory.

If it is unconstitutional to require an ID to be able to vote, how is it okay to require an ID to cash a check, board an airplane, drive a car, or anything else?  If I go up to a bank teller and present a check against Donald Trump's account, what right has the teller to ask me for an ID?  Surely such an action would be discriminatory, given the federal court's ruling.

I recently sold some scrap metal to a junkyard.  It was a couple of old car batteries and miscellaneous scraps of copper and aluminum I didn't need.  They required me to show a government-issued photo ID to receive payment.  The reason for this is simple: to help track and discourage people who steal such things and sell them to junkyards.  Surely the integrity of our electoral process is more important than keeping tabs on people who sell scrap metal to junkyards.

For most people, voting is something that happens once a year or perhaps once every four years, while other things that require showing an ID are an everyday or at least weekly occurrence.  The discriminatory impact of requiring an ID in everyday matters is light-years greater than the impact of requiring an ID to vote.

So there you have it: requiring an ID to vote is more important than other things for which an ID is required, and the discriminatory impact of requiring an ID to vote is less than other things for which an ID is required.  Why, then, is it unconstitutional to require an ID to vote and perfectly all right to require an ID to sell scrap metal?  How does this make any sense?