11–20 of 255 posts
> APRS had requested that its employees be fingerprinted as a result of a background check requirement of one of its clients
> APRS terminated Harrington [...] without asking the client whether an exemption was available [...] even though alternatives to fingerprinting were available.
"Harrington informed APRS in July 2017 that having his fingerprints captured was contrary to his 'sincerely held religious belief.'" Good on him, but I thought they actually checked up on the whole "religious beliefs" thing? Is this an actual Christian belief? Edit: "Plaintiff, a devout Christian, informed AST that the Book of Revelation prohibits the “mark of the devil” which she believed included fingerprinting and…
Seems like a pretty straightforward argument from there to saying the employee is being discriminated against for a sincerely held religious belief. The belief itself being fringe hogwash is irrelevant.
Plus the employee offering to accept an alternative form of verification seems to point to the belief (however dumb) being sincere.
"Harrington informed APRS in July 2017 that having his fingerprints captured was contrary to his 'sincerely held religious belief.'" Good on him, but I thought they actually checked up on the whole "religious beliefs" thing? Is this an actual Christian belief? Edit: "Plaintiff, a devout Christian, informed AST that the Book of Revelation prohibits the “mark of the devil” which she believed included fingerprinting and…
yeah, I'm confused what belief is held such that you can't be fingerprinted. My initial searching for what that might be is mostly "Mark of the Beast". Which seems odd.
"Harrington informed APRS in July 2017 that having his fingerprints captured was contrary to his 'sincerely held religious belief.'" Good on him, but I thought they actually checked up on the whole "religious beliefs" thing? Is this an actual Christian belief? Edit: "Plaintiff, a devout Christian, informed AST that the Book of Revelation prohibits the “mark of the devil” which she believed included fingerprinting and…
Not a lawyer, but seems from the outside that they key thing is that another employee did get an alternate background check. So being told no accommodations are available is BS. Seems like a pretty straightforward argument from there to saying the employee is being discriminated against for a sincerely held religious belief. The belief itself being fringe hogwash is irrelevant. Plus the employee offering to accept an…
"Harrington informed APRS in July 2017 that having his fingerprints captured was contrary to his 'sincerely held religious belief.'" Good on him, but I thought they actually checked up on the whole "religious beliefs" thing? Is this an actual Christian belief? Edit: "Plaintiff, a devout Christian, informed AST that the Book of Revelation prohibits the “mark of the devil” which she believed included fingerprinting and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s orthogonal to court, the standard is not whether others hold that belief but whether the belief is sincerely held. Given that he identifies as Christian and whatever he believes got a ruling in his favor I would say that it’s an “actual” belief.
It is a religion, with many denominations. Not quite sure what the criteria is for when something varies such that it wouldn't be considered Christian.
The whole of it defies neat categorization. People who self-describe as Christians can't even universally agree which texts are authentic and holy and which are heretical frauds. The only thing they all universally share is the inclination to call themselves Christians (more than a few are eager to contest whether other self-described Christians are in fact Christians.)
One particular example: I was raised to believe that the Book of Mormon is a heretical fraud, and consequently to believe that Mormons are not real Christians (despite claiming to be.)
I'm not sure why people are so weird about fingerprints and facial recognition. Your biometrics are not secret at all, any more than your hair color. You fingerprint yourself in every restaurant with glass cups, and leave those prints behind when you depart.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s orthogonal to court, the standard is not whether others hold that belief but whether the belief is sincerely held. Given that he identifies as Christian and whatever he believes got a ruling in his favor I would say that it’s an “actual” belief.
It is a religion, with many denominations. Not quite sure what the criteria is for when something varies such that it wouldn't be considered Christian.
most of my family agreed to get fingerprinted to get free gym membership (family friend runs the gym and you scan your thumb at the door for access). It pissed me off so much.
Why did it piss you off? Is the fingerprint being used for something other than access? Is it even stored in a format that would allow it to be used for something else? I'm pretty privacy and personal freedom conscious- for example I wouldn't go anywhere that made me scan a QR code or use an app. But I can't think of any concern I have with a private business using my fingerprint as an access token, unless I'm also s…
Person at desk during signup:
"Just press agree and then insert your thump on the reader below."
That "agree" part is where they inserted their vague allusions to doing what they want