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

181–190 of 255 posts

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

#181

Post by _8j50 »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #44
motohagiography wrote: post #24

Good. Religious exemptions are pragmatic canaries for state overreach. People are not livestock, even if states and employers like to treat them that way. The idea of a religious exemption isn't just some pastafarian variation, it represents a very real line between the individual and group and whether one is a citizen or mere property. This is the marking issue with biometrics. Are you a being with agency, or are yo…

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…

Telling people they can have a religion but they can't practice it is as laughabaly silly as telling them they have freedom of speech so long as they don't say undesirable things. The entire point of a religion is implementation and execution of beliefs as a practice, without that it's just belief or philosophy which I don't believe is protected specifically as you noted.

I think people who ride your train of thought just don't like religion and disagree with it being a fundamental right. To which I would vehementely disagree because most of the other important rights modern societies enjoy became a thing in a very religious time and religious reasoning was used (of course I have many more reasons as well). I think it boils down to what may seem like a false dichotomy but is very true -- you either take the route of regulating people's ability to live according to their belief or you don't.

Don't be surprised when this is used against you either. If you live in America or even some european countries (see poland and hungary) your irreligious practices become also regulated. If the state can regulate belief then it can for example force kids to pray at school or punish kids who pray at school. It took millenia of wars and conflict to finally decide, let's not tell other people how to believe and how to practice said belief. Let's not forget the past and even the present?

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

#182

Post by smogcutter »

dane-pgp wrote: post #87
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.

> something placed/written on you That is a reasonable and mainstream interpretation, but one has to wonder how someone living in the first century AD would conceptualise a system of biometric surveillance and control, so that they could write about it using the language of the day. If someone uses their thumbprint to register their identity with their phone, and uses that biometric to unlock a digital copy of a gove…

> one has to wonder how someone living in the first century AD would conceptualise a system of biometric surveillance and control

I submit that one does not, in fact, have to wonder that.

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

#183

Post by anigbrowl »

mbg721 wrote: post #173
anigbrowl wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That just gives political power to people who purport to speak on behalf of this 'authority', some of whose motives or reasoning are highly questionable.

People with highly-questionable motives and reasoning inevitably show up anyway. If they have to concede that God is somebody besides themselves, then their armor has instant cracks.

I think you need to watch more televangelists cause they seem to be doing great :-/

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

#184

Post by throwawaylinux »

ironmagma wrote: post #179
throwawaylinux wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A vague rhetorical question is not an argument even if the person who wrote it may have had some logic or data behind what they said that could be formed into a proper argument. It's just a lazy, way overused tool that is more often than not employed when no such sound argument exists. They can't type out of logical coherent opposition, so they throw out some vague snide kind of question that's supposed to look like…

At the risk of putting forth someone else’s argument, I feel like it’s pretty easy to guess what they were saying. Because you were stating that no one should receive special benefits because of their religion, one must question how weekends could come about in such a system, considering they likely started as a religious observance. Obviously the system that fostered their development allowed such benefits to be gra…

> At the risk of putting forth someone else’s argument, I feel like it’s pretty easy to guess what they were saying.

So now you see how it wasn't an argument? You have to guess at what their actual argument! So they expect me to guess and construct an argument for them, and then refute it? Rubbish.

> Because you were stating that no one should receive special benefits because of their religion, one must question how weekends could come about in such a system,

Why must one question that? My argument was not "religion is responsible for nothing that I personally like or agree with". So this is just a bad strawman.

> considering they likely started as a religious observance.

If we were to change topic completely and argue about the origin of 5 day working week and other workplace health and safety reforms, I really don't know enough of the history of it. I have no problems acknowledging and being thankful for good things that religion has brought (if religion was responsible for the weekend, great that people had the sense to take my position on the matter and not restrict the weekend to religious people). However I would be slightly curious why it happened to come about right around the time of rising power of the labor movement in the west, and not any other time in the several millennia of these religions before then. Maybe just a coincidence. But either way I don't really care, I like weekends and I don't want them restricted to people with particular beliefs, so that's +1 for my argument.

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

#185

Post by throwawaylinux »

pyuser583 wrote: post #175
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…

Disagree. There’s a big difference between an Orthodox Jew being required to work on Saturday, and someone who just likes college football. Accommodations that come from deepseated beliefs need to be treated with utmost respect.

> There’s a big difference between an Orthodox Jew being required to work on Saturday, and someone who just likes college football.

You can't just leave me hanging there! What's the big difference?

What if that Saturday watching football is the person's passion and the only time of the week they feel happy? Who is a 3rd-party to step in and be the decider of what other peoples' wants and needs and feelings and beliefs are?

Surely the default, simplest, easiest, and most just position is to treat everyone the same.

> Accommodations that come from deepseated beliefs need to be treated with utmost respect.

I don't think they need to at all. Plenty of flat earthers, anti vaxxers, climate denialists, conspiracy theorists have extremely deep seated beliefs to the point of religious fervor. There are also religions or religious people whose beliefs are abhorrent or wrong to others. Why would they or any other belief religious or otherwise entitle them to respect or rights or allowances that nobody else has?

Here's how you just completely skirt all that and make it fair and equal for all: give everyone equal rights and protections.

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

#186

Post by ironmagma »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #184
ironmagma wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the risk of putting forth someone else’s argument, I feel like it’s pretty easy to guess what they were saying. Because you were stating that no one should receive special benefits because of their religion, one must question how weekends could come about in such a system, considering they likely started as a religious observance. Obviously the system that fostered their development allowed such benefits to be gra…

> At the risk of putting forth someone else’s argument, I feel like it’s pretty easy to guess what they were saying. So now you see how it wasn't an argument? You have to guess at what their actual argument! So they expect me to guess and construct an argument for them, and then refute it? Rubbish. > Because you were stating that no one should receive special benefits because of their religion, one must question how…

Generally speaking, when good things have to be imported from the past, that’s a sign the present is broken. The old things are still seen as good, so why couldn’t they be created today?

Why should we not allow new advancements? If a religion has a good idea, people in that religion should be allowed to experiment with it. Maybe it will turn into something that can benefit society at large.

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

#187

Post by SilverRed »

_8j50 wrote: post #181
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…

Telling people they can have a religion but they can't practice it is as laughabaly silly as telling them they have freedom of speech so long as they don't say undesirable things. The entire point of a religion is implementation and execution of beliefs as a practice, without that it's just belief or philosophy which I don't believe is protected specifically as you noted. I think people who ride your train of thought…

The OP point is still clear. If the law says "You must do x unless you have a religious exemption" then why should anyone at all be expected to do x if clearly it isn't important enough to enforce on all people.

If your religion includes killing people, it is still illegal regardless of your religion. So it seems reasonable that any law which can be overridden by a religious exemption should be dropped for all people.

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

#188

Post by throwawaylinux »

_8j50 wrote: post #181
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…

Telling people they can have a religion but they can't practice it is as laughabaly silly as telling them they have freedom of speech so long as they don't say undesirable things. The entire point of a religion is implementation and execution of beliefs as a practice, without that it's just belief or philosophy which I don't believe is protected specifically as you noted. I think people who ride your train of thought…

I didn't tell people they can have a religion but they can't practice it. And I never said freedom of religious belief was not a fundamental right. And I don't dislike religion. And what do you know of my "irreligious practices"?

Your whole post is just a big, oafish strawman. I might be insulted if it weren't so bad that it's actually making me laugh.

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

#189

Post by TakuYam »

trainsplanes wrote: post #178
pyuser583 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree. There’s a big difference between an Orthodox Jew being required to work on Saturday, and someone who just likes college football. Accommodations that come from deepseated beliefs need to be treated with utmost respect.

Disagree. There's no reason the state should say one person's personal choice to follow a religion allows them to forever be exempt from Saturday work, but someone who chooses to follow football has no right or guarantee to ever enjoy a Saturday. They deserve equal protections. There are many people out there far more passionate about their hobbies than many people who use their religion to excuse them from various e…

>There's no reason the state should say one person's personal choice to follow a religion

Religious people don’t see practicing their faith as a choice though, they see it as an obligation. Watching college ball is as tedious as religion but never an obligation

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

#190

Post by dotancohen »

avs733 wrote: post #128
Blikkentrekker wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is the Dutch standard, “deep conviction”, but I see no merit in that either. One should not be given special privileges because one's convictions be “deep” which is, if anything, symptomatic of not basing them on prudence but on hysteria and emotion. It's also irrelevant for the company itself; if a company can reasonably accommodate a man whose convictions are deep, it can do so the same with anyone else for th…

I wholeheartedly agree. Where is the line in deep conviction? can I steal if I had a deeply held religious conviction that it is appropriate?

The Roma believe themselves descended from the thief who stole Jesus' nail. Therefore, not only do they permit themselves to steal, but their stealing has widely been tolerated by authorities (even if not by the populations that they steal from).

That's been changing since the early twentieth century, but for decades the Roma were known as thieves. Unfortunately the stigma still lives until today.

EDIT: To the downvoters: Your social justice crusade is ridiculous. I'm not passing judgement on this group, I'm stating the facts. You'll notice that I called them Roma, like they call themselves today, and not the more common name associated with them in English which they decided themselves to avoid.

Hm, there is even no mention of the nail myth on the Roma Wikipedia page. But there is a separate page, not linked from the main Roma page, that explains it and even mentions that Roma are permitted to steal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_crucifixion_legend

Post reply on HN