Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

startribune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 255 posts

Re: Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

#61

Post by [deleted] »

jdavis703 wrote: post #5
sodality2 wrote: post #2

"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…

It depends. I’m 99% certain the Amish would not approve of fingerprinting. But it’s certainly not a widespread belief among the most popular mainstream Christian sects. However some states allow for a religious exemption that is based on personal belief, so one doesn’t need their pastor or priest to agree.

[deleted]

Re: Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

#62

Post by [deleted] »

sodality2 wrote: post #2

"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…

[deleted]

Re: Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

#63

Post by alasdair_ »

williamtrask wrote: post #56
Dylan16807 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hang on there. Allowing religious exemptions, and only religious exemptions, is a tiny fraction of the way to getting actual non-coerced consent.

That has its benefits given that anyone could otherwise just make up beliefs on the spot to suit their need. Religion requires a bit more institutionalisation and weight.

There often (not always) is no functional way to tell the difference between a belief made up on the spot and a “religious” belief.

Re: Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

#64

Post by dukeofdoom »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #48
smogcutter wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, afaik the mark of the beast is something placed/written on you by the antichrist. Whereas your fingerprints, are, like, part of your body. So even if you grant that the mark of the beast is a thing people believe in this doesn’t make much sense.

I suppose that means that a sincerely held religious belief need not actually be a tenet of the religion you follow, so long as you believe it, and believe it is related to your religion. Personally this seems like a gray area that is ripe for abuse. But I guess until such abuse becomes much more commonplace, we will not see a reform in the degree to which religious beliefs are favored by the courts. On the other han…

Generally the courts in their wisdom have decided its not the States interest to be pontificating on which religious beliefs are valid and sanctioned and which are not. That would be putting the cart before the horse. If the State gets to decide, then you might as well throw out all religious beliefs. The state is the Church.

Hence the standard that the belief just needs to be deeply held. I know that the knee jerk reaction is to give government more power. But you know, in America the power is with the people still.

If the State and corporations gets to decide what you put in your body, and what God you get to believe in, then the foundational promise of America is dead.

Re: Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

#65

Post by markdown »

smogcutter wrote: post #12
sodality2 wrote: post #2

"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…

> for a sincerely held religious belief.

You can't just let every single human claim whatever they want is a religious belief. To claim that having your likeness captured (whether it's a photo of your face, your foot, your fingers, or whatever) is against your religious beliefs is laughable. Does the person not have no drivers license (their face captured by a camera)?

If we can claim whatever we want, well it's against my religious belief to be fired.

Re: Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

#66

Post by jiqiren »

FpUser wrote: post #53

Disappointed that the person had to claim religious beliefs to protect common dignity. Owners of those companies should be fined into oblivion. Maybe by then they will realize what a scum they are.

The company is a debt collector - they are already a bunch of bloodsuckers from the start.

Re: Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

#67

Post by inetknght »

literallyaduck wrote: post #49
paulpauper wrote: post #30

How about the church of not needing a college degree to get a job

Sure, if you can attend the church conference of "My brother-in-law runs the place" they will find you an opportunity.

Nah, sue for religious discrimination when it's found out that someone else already employed also doesn't have a degree.

Re: Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

#68

Post by ithacaman »

throwthere wrote: post #52
throwawaylinux wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Religious exemptions shouldn't be a thing though. I should not get more protections or rights in any way than another citizen because I happen to have or claim different beliefs than them. I'm not talking about being discriminated against because of religious beliefs, mind you. I'm talking about the right to do or refuse something (e.g., refuse a fingerprint or, or refuse to serve alcohol) and protection of those cho…

I agree with you on principal but the courts have kind of interpreted the free exercise clause of the first amendment broadly by 2021 standards and there's not really any going back.

Sure there is. That's what amendments are for.

Re: Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

#69

Post by ithacaman »

williamtrask wrote: post #56
Dylan16807 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hang on there. Allowing religious exemptions, and only religious exemptions, is a tiny fraction of the way to getting actual non-coerced consent.

That has its benefits given that anyone could otherwise just make up beliefs on the spot to suit their need. Religion requires a bit more institutionalisation and weight.

How is that distinction constitutional? Privately held beliefs are illegitimate unless they are held with a registered institution?

Re: Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

#70

Post by matheusmoreira »

dabinat wrote: post #25

Interesting that he was religiously opposed to fingerprinting but had no problem with the debt collection aspect. I seem to recall Jesus being not-too-complimentary about the tax collectors of the time who hounded people for money.

There's a lot of things that people who never read the bible will never find out about.

Numbers 31

> Now kill all the boys.

> And kill every woman who has slept with a man,

> but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Post reply on HN