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

211–220 of 255 posts

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

#211

Post by dotancohen »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #185
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.

> 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 belief…

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

  > I don't think they need to at all.
Do you have a deepseated belief that people should not murder? What about people who don't have such a belief?

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

#212

Post by dotancohen »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #106
Lammy wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 choices. I hope you're not fond of "the weekend" considering it used to take a religious exemption to get a day off work at all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbat "Oop, gotta go — it's Buchwuch!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg58j-MoFic

That's not an argument.

  > That's not an argument.
No, it's a conversation. And I hope you're not fond of "thou shall not murder" either.

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

#213

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

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

#214

Post by [deleted] »

programmarchy wrote: post #130
TOMDM wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For military service the term conscientious objector comes to mind which Wikipedia defines as “ [refusal] on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, or religion” which seems appropriate to me.

[deleted]

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

#215

Post by kortilla »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #71
dukeofdoom wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

I have my own opinions about the wisdom of the courts. There are plenty of countries where religious beliefs are given far less leeway to interfere with secular contracts and associations, and many of those countries are still fine places to live. IMO, that's the proper place for religion, but there would have to be much abuse before we countenanced going in that direction in the US.

> secular contracts and associations, and many of those countries are still fine places to live.

Sure, that’s a great answer for people who aren’t religious or whose religious practices happen to line up well with secular “contracts and associations”. Not good for devout people though.

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

#216

Post by throwawaylinux »

dotancohen wrote: post #212
throwawaylinux wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not an argument.

> That's not an argument. No, it's a conversation. And I hope you're not fond of "thou shall not murder" either.

That's not an argument or a conversation.

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

#217

Post by ethbr0 »

Talanes wrote: post #163
ethbr0 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of at will employment is that there's supposed to be a free labor market. In that employers are free to act as they desire (hire and fire) and employees are free to act as they desire (hired and quit). The reaction to a bad job is... you quit and find another one. Granted, there are substantial power balances between the parties, which is why even the US adds some federal protections (can't fire or decide n…

>The reaction to a bad job is... you quit and find another one. Which is also an option in non At-Will Employment states.

Yes, but limitations on the fire and hire employer side make that a different proposition.

The harder it becomes to fire people, the harder it becomes to hire them.

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

#218

Post by motohagiography »

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…

This begs the question around "more," as though rights were a scalar measure of something fungible granted by a state, like allocating food between children. You probably wouldn't argue against the principle of rights of a minority to protections of their interest, and in the case of this exemption, the individual is the ultimate minority.

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

#219

Post by adinisom »

SilverRed wrote: post #187
_8j50 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As an atheist that's one thing I like about religion: preserving religious freedoms helps preserve the freedom of all people.

That said it's not a pure good. Religions can push for oppressive laws that match their beliefs.

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

#220

Post by Veen »

thatjamesdude wrote: post #196
_8j50 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> Freedom of Speech != Freedom of Consequence

This is becoming rather a tedious thought-terminating cliché in some circles. They rarely specify who should determine the consequences and which consequences are acceptable, which is usually exactly what's being discussed.

As in this case, where the discussion is whether losing one's job is an acceptable consequence when your beliefs lead you to action, inaction, or speech someone in power doesn't like.

Post reply on HN