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

191–200 of 255 posts

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

#191

Post by trainsplanes »

TakuYam wrote: post #189
trainsplanes wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Football fanatics don't see missing a game as a choice either.

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

#192

Post by throwawaylinux »

ironmagma wrote: post #186
throwawaylinux wrote: post #184

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. 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.

These are all wild pot shots that really don't form coherent arguments against my position. And you still have not had the decency to acknowledge or accept anything I wrote, or answer my question.

I mean, you're actually trying to equate giving everyone equal rights and protections under the law with not allowing new advancements. Sorry this is just stupid bad-faith arguing tactics.

I'd be happy to come back and respond to something substantial but obviously I'm not going to keep going down this path.

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

#193

Post by ironmagma »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #192
ironmagma wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

These are all wild pot shots that really don't form coherent arguments against my position. And you still have not had the decency to acknowledge or accept anything I wrote, or answer my question. I mean, you're actually trying to equate giving everyone equal rights and protections under the law with not allowing new advancements. Sorry this is just stupid bad-faith arguing tactics. I'd be happy to come back and resp…

> And you still have not had the decency to acknowledge or accept anything I wrote, or answer my question.

Sorry, there was just a lot to respond to and I picked what seemed like the most productive parts to reply to.

> So now you see how it wasn't an argument? You have to guess at what their actual argument!

Regardless, a rhetorical question isn't useless. Most of the famous paradoxes are rhetorical questions that sparked a lot of debate within a community. Simply because it is not an argument does not mean it's lazy or not to be responded to.

> Why must one question that?

I find this an odd question to hear on a forum full of skeptics... IMO, we should question everything. It's just the best way to engage with a world full of misleading appearances.

> My argument was not "religion is responsible for nothing that I personally like or agree with".

But if you derive benefit from something created by religion, it is somewhat hypocritical to want to stamp out the ability of religions to create benefits for people.

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

#194

Post by ARandomerDude »

trainsplanes wrote: post #191
TakuYam wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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

Football fanatics don't see missing a game as a choice either.

There's a massive difference between I like football a lot and I am accountable to God to keep the 4th Commandment.

Ezekiel 22:8,31 ESV

"You have despised my holy things and profaned my Sabbaths... [31] Therefore I have poured out my indignation upon them. I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath. I have returned their way upon their heads, declares the Lord GOD."

Ultimately freedom of religion prevents the situation in which a person is forced to come to the conclusion that a lower authority (government) is attempting to usurp the highest authority (God). At that point, any religious person has three bad alternatives:

1. Disobey God.

2. Suffer persecution from the government.

3. Rebel against the government.

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

#195

Post by trainsplanes »

ARandomerDude wrote: post #194
trainsplanes wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Football fanatics don't see missing a game as a choice either.

There's a massive difference between I like football a lot and I am accountable to God to keep the 4th Commandment. Ezekiel 22:8,31 ESV "You have despised my holy things and profaned my Sabbaths... [31] Therefore I have poured out my indignation upon them. I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath. I have returned their way upon their heads, declares the Lord GOD." Ultimately freedom of religion prevents the sit…

Not every religion has a violent god who threatens death and eternal suffering for operating a mouse and keyboard on a Saturday, yet people of other religions are all granted equal exemptions as those who do choose to believe they'll be struck down.

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

#196

Post by thatjamesdude »

_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…

> 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.

Freedom of Speech != Freedom of Consequence.

Don't care for the rest of the comment because I've come to believe those that can't wrap their heads around the difference between civil and criminal law are not worth talking to about either.

Some might say there's irony in the religious component being mentioned, but I say it is natural. Not many incentives to think critically or against the grain in religion, not surprising it is rare amongst its proponents then.

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

#197

Post by PostThisTooFast »

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…

I agree, but "religion" shouldn't be the only mechanism for objecting to that kind of personal violation.

On the other hand, if you work on company property with company equipment, that company can, at any time, take your fingerprints off of said equipment; just as it can access communications performed on their equipment or record you as you roam around company property.

So what is really being accomplished here?

"You're posting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks."

PLEASE SHOVE YOUR DISRESPECT FOR YOUR USERS UP YOUR ASS, HACKER NEWS.

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

#198

Post by justinclift »

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.

Doesn't seem to really work that way.

Instead, they claim that is what their $deity has revealed must be done.

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

#199

Post by PostThisTooFast »

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #116
aaron_m04 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I very much doubt that any government would allow that, for obvious reasons.

There are other somewhat similar cases however. In Finland, conscription may be avoided by being a Jehova's witness, that sole religion, on the basis of that it is a non-violent religion, ignoring that many other religions have similar tenants, and many non-religious people are also deeply pacifist who are still conscript. — That sole religion, so named, is exempted from conscription. And one only need prove membersh…

"other religions have similar tenants"

TENETS. The word is "tenets."

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

#200

Post by throwawaylinux »

ironmagma wrote: post #193
throwawaylinux wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are all wild pot shots that really don't form coherent arguments against my position. And you still have not had the decency to acknowledge or accept anything I wrote, or answer my question. I mean, you're actually trying to equate giving everyone equal rights and protections under the law with not allowing new advancements. Sorry this is just stupid bad-faith arguing tactics. I'd be happy to come back and resp…

> And you still have not had the decency to acknowledge or accept anything I wrote, or answer my question. Sorry, there was just a lot to respond to and I picked what seemed like the most productive parts to reply to. > So now you see how it wasn't an argument? You have to guess at what their actual argument! Regardless, a rhetorical question isn't useless. Most of the famous paradoxes are rhetorical questions that s…

Strawman. I don't want to stamp out the ability of religions to create benefits for people.

At this point we're both wasting each other's time here so that's it from me responding to these dishonest comments.

Post reply on HN