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

231–240 of 255 posts

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

#231

Post by jxidjhdhdhdhfhf »

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…

It's unfortunate that one needs to make up a god to be exempt from the some of the most awful governmental abuses like conscription, but I'd rather have such an exemption than not have it at all.

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

#232

Post by spywaregorilla »

junon wrote: post #228
spywaregorilla wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this to be a lazy take though. Plenty of cultures have no nudity shame, have a culture of no locked doors, and know both who everyone is and where they live. I am privacy conscious, but this is a weak argument.

It's to illustrate a point, not directly to explain privacy. Most people in English speaking countries do not live in such places, and do have to worry about privacy in such ways. Unfortunately there's no real way of convincing someone so blind to privacy and its importance without big, dramatic examples. Such people need theatre to understand very fundamental things. Hence my comment. The majority of people I've fac…

Those are weak examples though. They're not compelling. Most people wouldn't really care if the government had a nude photo of them. And the reason people lock their front doors is for security, not privacy.

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

#233

Post by motohagiography »

dehrmann wrote: post #230
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…

There are pop-up churches giving religious exceptions to the covid vaccine. People are clearly using using religious exemptions as a loophole for "but I don't wanna."

By "don't wanna," do you mean decline to consent?

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

#234

Post by elzbardico »

adinisom wrote: post #219
SilverRed wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

and let's not forget that not having a religion is a religious freedom.

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

#235

Post by elzbardico »

Veen wrote: post #220
thatjamesdude wrote: post #196

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. 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 spee…

Indeed, this was a very common argument by the regime apologists in South American military dictatorships.

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

#236

Post by elzbardico »

_v7gu wrote: post #224
thatjamesdude wrote: post #196

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. 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 Ah yes, Godwin's law for the 2020's. So we can fire people for spouting commie propaganda (ie promoting unions) now?

Why not send them to Gulags. We just need them to know beforehand that some kind of speech have this unfortunate consequence.

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

#237

Post by suifbwish »

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…

You saying there shouldn’t be religious exceptions is a religious statement. “Should” or “should not” implies that there is an objective best way or morally just way that goes above and beyond the scientific method, any such path of reasoning unless a part of a social contract or agreed upon definitions of such, it is religious in nature and thus unable to be proven beyond the echo chamber of people who already believe it.

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

#238

Post by suifbwish »

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…

I think it’s pretty clear by now that anything that can be excused with a religious exemption probably isn’t critical enough to be a legal requirement for the rest of the population.

Such as income taxes. I’m not against religious organizations not paying income tax but I do think they should pay property tax beyond the acreage required for the church/temple/mosque building, a garage and a parking lot. Allowances could be made if they run a pantry or a school for additional tax free land but no more of this having a church own dozens to hundreds of acres and buildings that they have little to no incentive to use for anything once purchased. Since they don’t pay property or income taxes, inflation does not hit them as hard but since they are competing for the same properties in the market they have an unfair advantage.

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

#239

Post by sneak »

junon wrote: post #207
sneak wrote: post #10

I'm not sure why people are so weird about fingerprints and facial recognition. Your biometrics are not secret at all, any more than your hair color. You fingerprint yourself in every restaurant with glass cups, and leave those prints behind when you depart.

What's your home address? What's your social security number? Send me some nudes, everyone has genitalia right? Leave your door unlocked when you go to bed tonight, you have nothing to hide right? This is such a bad and harmful take.

My home address and SSN are secret.

Imagery of my face and fingers is not.

There's a big difference between what you and I are talking about.

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

#240

Post by throwawaylinux »

dotancohen wrote: post #221
throwawaylinux wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not an argument or a conversation.

All right, then I'll rephrase as you seem inclined towards the former and not the latter. On what axiom do you base the premise that citizens should not murder fellow citizens in your society?

What exactly do you think it would prove if I said the ten commandments is the basis? My point is that murder should be illegal regardless of the religion of the perpetrator or the victim, not that no laws are to be influenced by or borrowed from religion!
Post reply on HN