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

#171

Post by dane-pgp » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 4:39 AM UTC

kaishiro wrote: post #157

dane-pgp wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that people who never read the Bible will never find out about Numbers 31, yet here you are telling many people who never read the Bible about Numbers 31. I almost wonder if the average atheist is more likely to be aware of this Biblical narrative than the average Christian, but I'm not sure what that would prove if true. Anyway, it's worth linking to the Wikipedia article which provides the background to tha…

I'm not seeing where in the link you shared it states that this was the standard practice. But that aside, if we're allowed to dismiss certain aspects of the bible because they are no longer culturally relevant, how do we decide which tenets should be followed at all?

I didn't mean to suggest that the Wikipedia article covered the standard practice of people groups at that time, but the Old Testament (not to mention the past 2000 years) is full of examples of nations attempting to exterminate the Jewish people.

To give just a couple of examples, there is the case of Pharaoh ordering the killing of all male children at the start of Exodus[0], and in Esther chapter 3 we see that the antagonist Haman's plan was "to destroy all the Jews who were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus".[1]

Anyway, I don't think Christians should dismiss aspects of the Bible that are culturally difficult, but there are principles for applying its contents to modern situations. The relevant principle here would be that the Ten Commandments are to be generally followed at all times, but God may choose to give specific instructions for specific situations which override those commandments. Reassuringly, it wasn't up to Moses to decide whether or not to attack the Midianites, as he was given that as a direct instruction, in his capacity as the political leader of the Israelites.

[0] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%201&vers...

[1] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Esther%203&vers...

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

#172

Post by Dylan16807 » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 4:41 AM UTC

Gunax wrote: post #84

mikeryan wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Satanic Temple has been pushing to use religious exemptions around laws such as Texas' recent abortion law. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Sata...

The Satanists are a perfect poison pill to overbroad exemptions. They have all ready staged a figurative middle finger to religious carve-outs with their 10 commandments protest (disguised as a Moloch statue, of course). 'Oh, I thought this was for all faiths to be treated equally...' And since it's a new/fake religion, their beliefs are a blank slate which can be adapted to whichever liberty or situation presents it…

> And since it's a new/fake religion, their beliefs are a blank slate which can be adapted to whichever liberty or situation presents itself.

Perhaps, but that's not necessary here. Making decisions for yourself is a huge part of Satanism.

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

#173

Post by mbg721 » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 4:47 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #169

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.

That just gives political power to people who purport to speak on behalf of this 'authority', some of whose motives or reasoning are highly questionable.

People with highly-questionable motives and reasoning inevitably show up anyway. If they have to concede that God is somebody besides themselves, then their armor has instant cracks.

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

#174

Post by leeoniya » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 4:49 AM UTC

ironmagma wrote: post #159

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.

Thinking about it practically… should we need to rely on it? Ideally no. But the reality seems to be, religion is getting us something we otherwise wouldn’t get. So why get rid of the good thing? If anything this is evidence of religion’s value.

> If anything this is evidence of religion’s value.

that's an odd take. a bit like saying "our founders loved X, so they carved out favorable laws for X, which is evidence that X is good."

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

#175

Post by pyuser583 » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 5:12 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…

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.

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

#176

Post by ironmagma » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 5:18 AM UTC

leeoniya wrote: post #174

ironmagma wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thinking about it practically… should we need to rely on it? Ideally no. But the reality seems to be, religion is getting us something we otherwise wouldn’t get. So why get rid of the good thing? If anything this is evidence of religion’s value.

> If anything this is evidence of religion’s value. that's an odd take. a bit like saying "our founders loved X, so they carved out favorable laws for X, which is evidence that X is good."

If religion isn’t necessary to the well functioning of our system, we should expect to see just as many irreligious court challenges to this requirement that succeed. That said, we don’t. Regardless of whether it’s “inherently valuable,” it seems to be valuable here and now, in this system we live in.

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

#177

Post by foerbert » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 5:22 AM UTC

Arainach wrote: post #146

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…

If they decide that, then you don't have an inherent right to work there. You're allowed to quit. It's similar to how people who are unwilling to dispense reproductive care or contraceptives have many career options available to them - but no inherent right to be pharmacists or doctors.

This seems patently ridiculous. How can there be no limits just because a perspective employee can theoretically refuse?

What if all the companies decided to have these requirements?

There's an inherent power imbalance here that isn't so simple as dismissing any issues simply because there is no literal gun being held to the head at the moment of decision.

And I'll assume even you have limits somewhere. For example, predicating employment for a cushy remote via snail-mail job on a specific person happening to die... Eventually you just get to the most threadbare excuses for soliciting illegal activity.

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

#178

Post by trainsplanes » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 5:22 AM UTC

pyuser583 wrote: post #175

throwawaylinux wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Disagree.

There's no reason the state should say one person's personal choice to follow a religion allows them to forever be exempt from Saturday work, but someone who chooses to follow football has no right or guarantee to ever enjoy a Saturday. They deserve equal protections.

There are many people out there far more passionate about their hobbies than many people who use their religion to excuse them from various expectations. They shouldn't be denied enjoyment.

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

#179

Post by ironmagma » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 5:23 AM UTC

throwawaylinux wrote: post #162

ironmagma wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a challenge — poster is asking if you also oppose weekends, since that would be presumably required to make your argument consistent with other things unmentioned.

A vague rhetorical question is not an argument even if the person who wrote it may have had some logic or data behind what they said that could be formed into a proper argument. It's just a lazy, way overused tool that is more often than not employed when no such sound argument exists. They can't type out of logical coherent opposition, so they throw out some vague snide kind of question that's supposed to look like…

At the risk of putting forth someone else’s argument, I feel like it’s pretty easy to guess what they were saying. Because you were stating that no one should receive special benefits because of their religion, one must question how weekends could come about in such a system, considering they likely started as a religious observance. Obviously the system that fostered their development allowed such benefits to be granted, but if they followed your model, they would not, and we might be working 7 day work weeks today as a result. Is that not bad?

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

#180

Post by anigbrowl » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 5:29 AM UTC

dane-pgp wrote: post #87

smogcutter wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, afaik the mark of the beast is something placed/written on you by the antichrist. Whereas your fingerprints, are, like, part of your body. So even if you grant that the mark of the beast is a thing people believe in this doesn’t make much sense.

> something placed/written on you That is a reasonable and mainstream interpretation, but one has to wonder how someone living in the first century AD would conceptualise a system of biometric surveillance and control, so that they could write about it using the language of the day. If someone uses their thumbprint to register their identity with their phone, and uses that biometric to unlock a digital copy of a gove…

omg stop. This is just sophistry.

There are lots of good arguments against the surveillance state or the idea of privacy as a fundamental right, reverse-engineering 2000 year old religious visions to mean something opposite of their plainly stated text (notwithstanding translation) is neither necessary nor helpful.

Need I remind you that the events of the New Testament start around the time of a Roman census, so the idea of individuals' own names being catalogued by the state was not an unfamiliar concept even back then.