Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A religious sect landed Google in a lawsuit

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 582 posts

Re: A religious sect landed Google in a lawsuit

#421

Post by woodruffw »

volume wrote: post #405
woodruffw wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cults are not religions. The body of decisions is remarkably explicit about this, when you consider how difficult the question “what is a religion” actually is. Edit: I forgot to provide references. Here’s a summary[1] of a 1988 California Supreme Court ruling in which the court determined that cult conduct does not fall under religious protections, even if the cult’s members might genuinely believe the cult’s doctri…

To me, there's a venn diagram. some cults are religions. Some are just cults and not religions. It sounds like you're coming from a legal perspective. Is that really the end-all-be-all representation of reality?

Of course it isn’t. But this conversation is about the legal risk to Google, so that’s the only part I’m going to concern myself with.

Re: A religious sect landed Google in a lawsuit

#422

Post by swat535 »

reissbaker wrote: post #298
rl3 wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should we forbid Catholics for the same reason? Your answer lies in the distinction between cults and religion. In a nutshell, cults exert control over their members such that they compel them to behave contrary to their own interests. So the modern, practical answer to that question is: No. Your average Catholic is no threat and is very likely to be acting in their own interest, free of undue influence. The Cathol…

Catholicism has certainly compelled people to behave "contrary to their own interests" — e.g. preventing LGBT members from pursuing love, preventing unhappily-married people from divorcing, preventing women with dangerous or difficult pregnancies from seeking abortion; and that's without even referencing the many documented instances of child abuse — so I'm not sure that distinction makes a huge difference.

No one is forced to be a Catholic.

LGBTQ and Homosexuals are welcome to leave at any time. Those who join Catholicism, clearly understand the Catechesis (as they have to go through RCIA) and if they conclude that they don't fit, they can go to another denomination.

I went through RCIA and we had people who literally decided to leave the night before Easter Vigil and no one harassed or bothered them.

You are welcome to disagree with the Church but to compare Catholicism with a Cult is disingenuous.

Re: A religious sect landed Google in a lawsuit

#423

Post by bobthepanda »

volume wrote: post #405
woodruffw wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cults are not religions. The body of decisions is remarkably explicit about this, when you consider how difficult the question “what is a religion” actually is. Edit: I forgot to provide references. Here’s a summary[1] of a 1988 California Supreme Court ruling in which the court determined that cult conduct does not fall under religious protections, even if the cult’s members might genuinely believe the cult’s doctri…

To me, there's a venn diagram. some cults are religions. Some are just cults and not religions. It sounds like you're coming from a legal perspective. Is that really the end-all-be-all representation of reality?

It is if you are talking about discrimination according to the law, which is what the thread has been debating.

Re: A religious sect landed Google in a lawsuit

#424

Post by nemo44x »

zaphar wrote: post #325
whimsicalism wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specific to AWU, I'd imagine - as it's not a "real union"

They are a real union. They just don't have a union contract with Google so it's a real union without teeth.

No one considers them a real union. It’s more of a social club of upper middle class people that want to pretend they are revolutionaries or something. People used to form bowling teams with coworkers. I guess this is the new version of that.

Re: A religious sect landed Google in a lawsuit

#425

Post by [deleted] »

dubswithus wrote: post #357
jonas21 wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was also an odd clustering among early Google employees who all came from a place called "Stanford." It may be difficult to distinguish between these two hiring patterns without asking the sorts of questions that are illegal for employers to ask.

I don’t understand your point. The cult we are discussing here is accused of engaging in grooming and pedophilia. That’s comparable to a bunch of people that went to Stanford?

[deleted]

Re: A religious sect landed Google in a lawsuit

#426

Post by mandevil »

dubswithus wrote: post #370
abeppu wrote: post #274

So, if the author was fired for the reasons they believe, that's pretty bad behavior. But if he had not been fired, what was management supposed to have done about the cult members working for this department? Yes, the cult's leader sounds like a pretty awful person, but he wasn't working there. What were the cult members doing in their work in the department that was clearly wrong? It's suggested that there was favo…

The leader of the cult is accused of grooming minors. That means Google is funding the next Jeffrey Esptein. > Are you supposed to then ask everyone in the department about their religious affiliations, or whether they've given money to a fringe religious organization? That also seems like a really unhealthy road for a company to go down. I’d suggest a question like this: 1) Are you affiliated with an organization th…

I am an Eagle Scout, and proud of that fact. That means that I am affiliated with- and proud of my experience with- an organization that molests children[1]. To my knowledge it never happened in my troop, but it definitely happened, a lot, in the nationwide organization.

I was baptized a Roman Catholic, but left the church long before the Spotlight investigations came out, though that was hardly the first time that the organizations complicity with sexual abuse got attention. The largest Protestant denomination in the country, the Southern Baptist Convention, just released a massive report about how they hid and enabled sexual abuse of minors (and grown-ups) for decades[2].

What about the entire Canadian government turning a blind eye to sexual abuse of First Nations children for over a century at the Indian Residential Schools that they paid for[3]?

If you answer that question honestly, I would hazard a guess most people have affiliations with an organization that turned a blind eye to abusive behavior, because that is, unfortunately, incredibly common.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_sex_abus... [2]: https://www.vox.com/culture/23131530/southern-baptist-conven... [3]: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/why-so-many-sexual-pred...

Re: A religious sect landed Google in a lawsuit

#427

Post by hinkley »

woodruffw wrote: post #394
throwoutway wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, google employees would be breaking the law by hiring primarily because of religious preference and thus discriminating against competent candidates of other religious (or non) preference

Cults are not religions. The body of decisions is remarkably explicit about this, when you consider how difficult the question “what is a religion” actually is. Edit: I forgot to provide references. Here’s a summary[1] of a 1988 California Supreme Court ruling in which the court determined that cult conduct does not fall under religious protections, even if the cult’s members might genuinely believe the cult’s doctri…

And MLMs aren't pyramid schemes.

At some point you have organizations that are doing the exact bare minimum to dodge a more unsavory classification. The Rule of Law can't legislate being a good person. It can only legislate not being a monster.

Re: A religious sect landed Google in a lawsuit

#428

Post by jhardy54 »

lnxg33k1 wrote: post #420

I am not sure what to take about this post other than either I’m unable to understand the culture in which the fact happened or the guy is an idiot with capitalised letters and space, but I always joked with coworkers when I joined a company when I was introduced to the team to whom you were supposed to report illegal things you saw within the company, and we would think who is so naive to report the company to the c…

What a sentence.

Could you rephrase? I’m confused at what you’re trying to say.

Re: A religious sect landed Google in a lawsuit

#429

Post by woodruffw »

hinkley wrote: post #427
woodruffw wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cults are not religions. The body of decisions is remarkably explicit about this, when you consider how difficult the question “what is a religion” actually is. Edit: I forgot to provide references. Here’s a summary[1] of a 1988 California Supreme Court ruling in which the court determined that cult conduct does not fall under religious protections, even if the cult’s members might genuinely believe the cult’s doctri…

And MLMs aren't pyramid schemes. At some point you have organizations that are doing the exact bare minimum to dodge a more unsavory classification. The Rule of Law can't legislate being a good person. It can only legislate not being a monster.

I'm not interested in legislating the exact qualities of a "good person." I'm pointing out that, from a case law perspective, Google is entirely in clear to fire these people.

The categorical question of "is X a cult" doesn't impinge on whether The Fellowship of Friends is a cult, which it is.

Post reply on HN