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

201–210 of 255 posts

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

#201

Post by markdown »

selcuka wrote: post #72
markdown wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for a sincerely held religious belief. You can't just let every single human claim whatever they want is a religious belief. To claim that having your likeness captured (whether it's a photo of your face, your foot, your fingers, or whatever) is against your religious beliefs is laughable. Does the person not have no drivers license (their face captured by a camera)? If we can claim whatever we want, well it's agai…

You are cherry picking from the comment (and the article): > the key thing is that another employee did get an alternate background check It doesn't matter if it's a religious belief that you approve of or not. The point is it was possible but was not offered as an option for this person.

Nah, you're assuming I'm discussing the case in the article, when in fact I'm just talking about religious belief exemptions in general.

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

#202

Post by ironmagma »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #200
ironmagma wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And you still have not had the decency to acknowledge or accept anything I wrote, or answer my question. Sorry, there was just a lot to respond to and I picked what seemed like the most productive parts to reply to. > So now you see how it wasn't an argument? You have to guess at what their actual argument! Regardless, a rhetorical question isn't useless. Most of the famous paradoxes are rhetorical questions that s…

Strawman. I don't want to stamp out the ability of religions to create benefits for people. At this point we're both wasting each other's time here so that's it from me responding to these dishonest comments.

This article is about a religion creating benefits for a person, but you don't want that to happen. How is that a dishonest comment?

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

#203

Post by ElFitz »

_8j50 wrote: post #181
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…

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…

> most of the other important rights modern societies enjoy became a thing in a very religious time and religious reasoning was used

Which times? And what religious reasoning?

Personally, it makes me think of "Les Lumières", and I fail to see any religious reasoning in Voltaire or Rousseau.

So, being pretty sure we aren’t thinking of the same times and people, I’m curious.

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

#205

Post by dane-pgp »

smogcutter wrote: post #182
dane-pgp wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> one has to wonder how someone living in the first century AD would conceptualise a system of biometric surveillance and control I submit that one does not, in fact, have to wonder that.

Okay, let me rephrase that.

If one believes that the events described in Revelation are events which are destined to occur in our future, and they were written about from the perspective of a man who lived in the first century AD, then it is worth considering the possibility that the events described would involve systems that would be difficult for him to understand and describe in the way that we see them.

Under such a set of assumptions, someone who is interested in interpreting the prophecy should wonder whether biometric surveillance is the sort of system that would be expressed by such a first century writer in the way that the beast system is expressed in Revelation.

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

#206

Post by dane-pgp »

anigbrowl wrote: post #180
dane-pgp wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I wasn't trying to suggest that the book of Revelation is the only reason to support the idea of privacy as a fundamental right. It is of course possible for people to support that right for many other good reasons.

However, I'm not sure if the "plainly stated text" of Revelation really has such a clear and unambiguous interpretation. Compare Revelation 19:16 which also talks about someone having a name written on them, which I don't think anyone would take literally, and they certainly wouldn't the previous verse where a sharp sword comes out of someone's mouth to strike down nations.

You may not find these interpretations helpful, but others do, and it's fine to see things differently. Also, you're right that Roman censuses would be well known to individuals living in the first century AD, as was the practice of branding slaves, so these would be natural analogies for the writer to use to convey spiritual truths, and perhaps more complicated as-yet-uninvented systems.

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

#207

Post by junon »

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.

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

#208

Post by alisonkisk »

arcticbull wrote: post #151
jay_kyburz wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he is pointing out that you could never ban circumcisions, but that it's scaring children for life, which is otherwise banned (tattoos). (and morally objectionable)

btw, IMO, I don't think parents should be in a position to make any irrevocable physical modifications to their children for religious or aesthetic purposes. Once you turn 18, by all means, feel free to take a little off the top.

It's much less traumatic to have a procedure done as a baby. Waiting for time to pass is also irrevocable.

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

#209

Post by alisonkisk »

amateurICEguy wrote: post #122
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…

Religious exemption is a proxy for an exemption of conscience. Which is something you should care about, unless you're perfectly tuned with the social zeitgeist. And it's an excellent proxy since most people's consciences are formed by their religious beliefs (maybe not most HNers, but that's observational bias)

[dead]

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

#210

Post by dotancohen »

dotancohen wrote: post #190
avs733 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wholeheartedly agree. Where is the line in deep conviction? can I steal if I had a deeply held religious conviction that it is appropriate?

The Roma believe themselves descended from the thief who stole Jesus' nail. Therefore, not only do they permit themselves to steal, but their stealing has widely been tolerated by authorities (even if not by the populations that they steal from). That's been changing since the early twentieth century, but for decades the Roma were known as thieves. Unfortunately the stigma still lives until today. EDIT: To the downvo…

  >  but for decades the Roma were known as
Centuries, not decades.
Post reply on HN