And here's the problem, with both the decision and your analysis of the situation: The Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1998. You may not realize this, but in the mid-1990s, the Supreme Court handed down several decisions which made it much easier for states and the federal government to restrict your right to practice (or not practice) religion. In response, many states passed RFRAs, attempting to restore the law to its previous state: under RFRA, a state must demonstrate that it has (1) a COMPELLING interest to burden religion, and that (2) the practice burdening the religion is the "least restrictive means" of pursuing its compelling interest. So what does that mean?
First off, the law doesn't require or allow any inquiry into the individual's background--is it really RIGHT that, had Sultaana Freeman had a spotless past, you would be more willing to allow her to express her religious beliefs? Secondly, and this seems pretty obvious to me, but Islamic countries do not have RFRA, and are therefore not compelled to justify their actions. Sultaana Freeman does not live in Saudi Arabia--she should not have to live by its laws. Perhaps RFRA is the reason she *doesn't* live in Saudi Arabia. The only laws to which Sultaana is subject, and the only ones which protect her, are the laws of the U.S. Goverment and the State of Florida.
Further, driving is more than a privilege. To someone with two children, living in Orange Country, Florida, with seriously inadequate public transportation, driving becomes a near necessity. And for the last 20 years, states all over the country had found that (1) when a privilege such as driving is nearly necessary to carrying out one's daily functions, it must be treated as a right, and (2) for the RFRA inquiry, it doesn't matter if the you're dealing with a privilege or a right--the only inquiry is whether there is a substantial burden to the individual's religion.
Lastly, RFRA forbids interference with the "exercise of religion," which the state defines as "an act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the religious exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief." Thus, if Sultaana Freeman interprets Islamic law to say that she cannot unveil herself for a drivers license, it's HER BELIEF, not others' interpretation of Islam, that matters.
Oh, and there's no D in privilege.

Since you believe that driving is a privilege rather than a right, I am assuming it is because a govt. issued drivers license is required. In that line of thinking, then,,, "Marriage" must he considered a "Privilege" and not a right. No state acknowledges a "Marriage" unless the couple has a properly obtained govt. issued license to be married. (of course common law may apply, but only after a govt. mandated length of time is served in co-habitation). Brainwashing is so complete in this nation as to render most people totally in-line with the thought that govt. has a RIGHT to grant us privileges in every portion of our lives.... you really should look at what the Constitution as amended by the Bill of Rights has to say about the roll of govt. and the "Rights" of the people.