Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted • Hacker News Board

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

#251

Post by fennecfoxy » Wed, Sep 15, 2021, 9:55 AM UTC

pwgentleman wrote: post #248

SilverRed wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>something more controversial like a Christian baker being forced to make cakes for gay weddings? I don't think this changes anything really. If religious people can use their religion as a valid reason for discrimination, why shouldn't everyone be able to discriminate? To me, I think everyone should have exactly the same legal rights. Either everyone has to bake the cake or no one does.

The problem is the definition of "discrimination". Everyone _is_ able to discriminate all the time. I'm free to discriminate between cookie flavors I buy, or discriminate between genders of people I date. What the law forbids is not _serving_ people because of the color of their skin or their sexual preferences. And that is also not the case of Jack Phillips. He didn't refuse to serve gay people, and IIRC the accuser…

>which is akin to a Jewish t-shirt designer refusing to design a logo involving a Swastika, or a black transgender baker refusing to bake a cake that says "white lives matter" or "sex is immutable" These are really not equivalent at all. Not even remotely.

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

#252

Post by tomtimtall » Wed, Sep 15, 2021, 12:27 PM UTC

foerbert wrote: post #131

tomtimtall wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point of privacy laws are that your consent is required, and taking things from you under duress or coercion is not consent. This seems like your taking it a bit to the extreme. We both agree that for me to hire you to do a job I’m allowed to know who you are right? And that to identify the one person out of the world population I am allowed to keep a record with enough details that I can identify if a person i…

This, alone, is not the full picture. It's trivially easy to get into utter absurdity. What if an employer decides they can only identify people by surgically grafting special ID cards to their foreheads? There is - obviously - more at play here than simply the right of the employer to identify employees by any means they wish. There is some level of reasonableness here as well. This moves the argument into murkier g…

That a completely different and silly argument. Should an employer be allowed to raise an employees wage? Yes, sure.... but no, if hey are allowed to modify the terms of employment hat must mean they’ve also should have he right to steal employees first borne!!?

You trying to argue against fingerprinting, a identification practice so damn common that’s almost everyone currently has a device in their pocket using it, by saying “but what if they then adopt something completely unacceptable!!?” That’s not an argument against the simple known technology, it’s just an absurd slippery sloop argument where you pretend everything is one giant variation of similar actions an therefore nothing must ever change for fear that this could mean over negative changes could come.

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

#253

Post by foerbert » Sat, Sep 18, 2021, 4:01 AM UTC

tomtimtall wrote: post #252

foerbert wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This, alone, is not the full picture. It's trivially easy to get into utter absurdity. What if an employer decides they can only identify people by surgically grafting special ID cards to their foreheads? There is - obviously - more at play here than simply the right of the employer to identify employees by any means they wish. There is some level of reasonableness here as well. This moves the argument into murkier g…

That a completely different and silly argument. Should an employer be allowed to raise an employees wage? Yes, sure.... but no, if hey are allowed to modify the terms of employment hat must mean they’ve also should have he right to steal employees first borne!!? You trying to argue against fingerprinting, a identification practice so damn common that’s almost everyone currently has a device in their pocket using it,…

I was trying to use an absurd example to point out that it's not unreasonable to set some limits on what an employer can ask of a (possibly potential) employee.

I was not commenting on what those limits are or should be. I was only pointing out that they exist.

I don't understand how this relates to your own example. You seem to be trying to say that a contract is either completely mutable in an unlimited way or else totally immutable? I don't see how that's true at all. There are many limits on contracts already, and yet they still change frequently as situations change.

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

#254

Post by williamtrask » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 8:00 AM UTC

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

So is voting

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

#255

Post by williamtrask » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 8:05 AM UTC

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…

Many (most) governments throughout history didn’t respect religious diversity and unless Ik mistaken such intolerance tended to lead to worse outcomes. You’re fundamentally making an argument against institutional pluralism.