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

151–160 of 255 posts

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

#151

Post by arcticbull »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #142
adrianba wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what point you are making here. Presumably your obvious answer is "yes"? For example, there are indeed some states that outlaw tattooing minors (although many states do permit it with parental consent).

I think he is pointing out that you could never ban circumcisions, but that it's scaring children for life, which is otherwise banned (tattoos). (and morally objectionable)

btw, IMO, I don't think parents should be in a position to make any irrevocable physical modifications to their children for religious or aesthetic purposes.

Once you turn 18, by all means, feel free to take a little off the top.

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

#152

Post by shkkmo »

Lammy wrote: post #124
throwawaylinux wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not an argument.

Anything I don't like is an invalid argument "The present-day concept of the relatively longer 'week-end' first arose in the industrial north of Britain in the early 19th century and was originally a voluntary arrangement between factory owners and workers allowing Saturday afternoon off from 2 pm on the basis that staff would be available for work sober and refreshed on Monday morning."

I am also not following whatever point you are trying to make or how it relates to the person you are responding to. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking your stance, but simply with your stance or idea not being presented clearly.

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

#153

Post by ithacaman »

NoNotTheDuo wrote: post #97
ithacaman wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And in today’s political climate in the US, the chance of getting an amendment passed by 2/3 of both houses of Congress AND 38/50 states is basically nil.

That is not exactly true. Legislation like the Patriot Act or anti-child trafficking measures get bilateral support.

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

#154

Post by ironmagma »

avs733 wrote: post #127
mbg721 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you don't personally believe in any religion, it's useful for a society to formally acknowledge an authority that's greater than the individuals to whom it gives political power.

> it's useful for a society to formally acknowledge an authority that's greater than the individuals to whom it gives political power. yes, as you noted...that higher authority is society not god. The concept of god is an attempt to impute one's/a group's morals on a society

The problem is, you can’t poll society every time you need to decide the correct moral that applies. So you have to use your judgment, or in other words, ask yourself (aka be creative, effectively what asking God would accomplish assuming God doesn’t really exist).

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

#155

Post by adrianba »

arcticbull wrote: post #149
jay_kyburz wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he is pointing out that you could never ban circumcisions, but that it's scaring children for life, which is otherwise banned (tattoos). (and morally objectionable)

I'm not sure there isn't a path to banning circumcisions. After all the first amendment really only applies to the exercise of religious beliefs that affect your own personal autonomy. You can't claim a first amendment right to murder your enemies highlander style. Ergo, while traditional, the fact that you are requesting the modification of another human (not yourself), I could see this not surviving a challenge dow…

Agreed. I think it's very likely that a ban would be upheld against a Free Exercise challenge (even though at least one lower court did strike such a proposal down on this ground).

Some people think it would not survive a Due Process challenge, though, because there isn't a strong enough basis to overcome a parent's fundamental right to make decisions about their child. I could see that being a close question.

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

#156

Post by ironmagma »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #136
Lammy wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything I don't like is an invalid argument "The present-day concept of the relatively longer 'week-end' first arose in the industrial north of Britain in the early 19th century and was originally a voluntary arrangement between factory owners and workers allowing Saturday afternoon off from 2 pm on the basis that staff would be available for work sober and refreshed on Monday morning."

Your post did not even attempt to address anything I wrote. It was not an argument. Hoping I'm not fond of weekends is not an argument.

It’s a challenge — poster is asking if you also oppose weekends, since that would be presumably required to make your argument consistent with other things unmentioned.

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

#157

Post by kaishiro »

dane-pgp wrote: post #135
matheusmoreira wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You say that people who never read the Bible will never find out about Numbers 31, yet here you are telling many people who never read the Bible about Numbers 31. I almost wonder if the average atheist is more likely to be aware of this Biblical narrative than the average Christian, but I'm not sure what that would prove if true. Anyway, it's worth linking to the Wikipedia article which provides the background to tha…

I'm not seeing where in the link you shared it states that this was the standard practice.

But that aside, if we're allowed to dismiss certain aspects of the bible because they are no longer culturally relevant, how do we decide which tenets should be followed at all?

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

#158

Post by mbg721 »

avs733 wrote: post #127
mbg721 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you don't personally believe in any religion, it's useful for a society to formally acknowledge an authority that's greater than the individuals to whom it gives political power.

> it's useful for a society to formally acknowledge an authority that's greater than the individuals to whom it gives political power. yes, as you noted...that higher authority is society not god. The concept of god is an attempt to impute one's/a group's morals on a society

But societies that deny God end up with a god anyway, and impute their morals on society anyway. I'd much rather have the higher authority be explicitly contemptuous of the head of state.

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

#159

Post by ironmagma »

TOMDM wrote: post #125
amateurICEguy wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Religious exemption is a proxy for an exemption of conscience. Which is something you should care about, unless you're perfectly tuned with the social zeitgeist. And it's an excellent proxy since most people's consciences are formed by their religious beliefs (maybe not most HNers, but that's observational bias)

I think the person you're replying to is arguing all exemptions of conscience should be ubiquitous. That we shouldn't have to rely on religion to fight that proxy battle for us.

Thinking about it practically… should we need to rely on it? Ideally no. But the reality seems to be, religion is getting us something we otherwise wouldn’t get. So why get rid of the good thing? If anything this is evidence of religion’s value.

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

#160

Post by arcticbull »

adrianba wrote: post #155
arcticbull wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure there isn't a path to banning circumcisions. After all the first amendment really only applies to the exercise of religious beliefs that affect your own personal autonomy. You can't claim a first amendment right to murder your enemies highlander style. Ergo, while traditional, the fact that you are requesting the modification of another human (not yourself), I could see this not surviving a challenge dow…

Agreed. I think it's very likely that a ban would be upheld against a Free Exercise challenge (even though at least one lower court did strike such a proposal down on this ground). Some people think it would not survive a Due Process challenge, though, because there isn't a strong enough basis to overcome a parent's fundamental right to make decisions about their child. I could see that being a close question.

I agree, and I think the prevailing climate would have to change first. However I don't see anything that would make such a law fundamentally and obviously unconstitutional.

The case I could make is that it may prevent the child's right to future free exercise of a religion in which the, uh, package should be, err, OEM.

Post reply on HN