A religious sect landed Google in a lawsuit

Post by incompatible » Fri, Jun 17, 2022, 4:35 AM UTC

godmode2019 wrote: post #441

woodruffw wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cults are not “obscure religious groups.” It varies widely by state (and in federal jurisprudence), but most states have a “free association”-style test: if members aren’t free to come and go, it’s a cult and not a religion. Google would not be exposed to any significant liability here. Particularly not when the cult has a well-documented history of sexual abuse.

Surely that's not true? Islam for example is a religion, that you can not leave.

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 17, 2022, 4:37 AM UTC

achow wrote: post #445

buildbot wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least at Microsoft this would also get you fired pretty fast, according to the infamous standards of business conduct.

At most of the big corp. Somewhere in my employment letter it says, you are representing company outside of workplace and work hours as well (that is in personal life too). I can be fired if I bring disrepute to company anytime - ex. involved in a weekend nightclub drunken brawl.

Post by JetAlone » Fri, Jun 17, 2022, 4:42 AM UTC

rl3 wrote: post #260

warkdarrior wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Quoting the article: > "The group is well-documented: There are allegations of child abuse, human trafficking, forced abortions, and rape within the group, which has some 1,500 members worldwide and makes frequent prophecies of an imminent apocalypse." Those seem like issues for prosecutors to pursue, not for Google, unless the abuses were happening in Google offices or were sponsored by them.

> ... or were sponsored by them. Quoting again from the article: "The wine was our most consistent feature, and the invoices I’ve seen suggest we were buying hundreds of thousands of dollars worth every year, just from Grant Marie."

Post by yellow_postit » Fri, Jun 17, 2022, 4:48 AM UTC

user_7832 wrote: post #416

abirch wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There should be a parameter in the back of the link that lets see this article for free, e.g., unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACEIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxftm3iWka3DLDm8ciPgYCIiG_EPKarskaNw00DCWAdFMNLsoW-dyz_caOEIoRROpr52Ig9EeLi4p74KvW2d8l7T8YYcFyx64JG-oNLU4g7SloxONNDX3Wvba1yUnd1569Jc1c0Wt3SYM2vzHG-VqitZ5jfcjB5p-TWpWdzDK66ezc2h2MdWHbBjd7wkkCaoOCXyIw4nqu_9Xex5SCFnGUHp7_W44jdhfM9odN6z5RAUyLIu82f5CTzw1c_r…

If you don't mind my asking, how did you get the gift code? Can any subscriber get it, or do you need special privileges?

Post by jordemort » Fri, Jun 17, 2022, 4:57 AM UTC

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…