18 ms·

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

203 points by miles 5y ago

sodality2 5y ago
"Harrington informed APRS in July 2017 that having his fingerprints captured was contrary to his 'sincerely held religious belief.'" Good on him, but I thought they actually checked up on the whole "religious beliefs" thing? Is this an actual Christian belief? Edit: "Plaintiff, a devout Christian, informed AST that the Book of Revelation prohibits the “mark of the devil” which she believed included fingerprinting and that she would not get into Heaven if fingerprinted. She asked AST for an accommodation, such as undergoing a different type of background check that did not require fingerprinting. AST purportedly informed her that no accommodations were available and terminated her employment for refusing to comply with CPSL’s fingerprinting requirement. Asserting that AST allowed at least one employee with “unreadable” fingerprints to participate in an alternative background check, plaintiff’s ensuing lawsuit alleged religious discrimination and unlawful retaliation." https://tbowleslaw.com/religious-objection-mandatory-fingerprinting/ https://tbowleslaw.com/religious-objection-mandatory-fingerp...
- whiddershins 5y ago
  Depending on the Christian denomination there may be explicit provision for personal conscience in interpreting certain things within the context of your faith.
- _3u10 5y ago
  That’s orthogonal to court, the standard is not whether others hold that belief but whether the belief is sincerely held. Given that he identifies as Christian and whatever he believes got a ruling in his favor I would say that it’s an “actual” belief.
  - keithnz 5y ago
    It is a religion, with many denominations. Not quite sure what the criteria is for when something varies such that it wouldn't be considered Christian.
    - slapfrog 5y ago
      > It is a religion, with many denominations. The whole of it defies neat categorization. People who self-describe as Christians can't even universally agree which texts are authentic and holy and which are heretical frauds. The only thing they all universally share is the inclination to call themselves Christians (more than a few are eager to contest whether other self-described Christians are in fact Christians.) One particular example: I was raised to believe that the Book of Mormon is a heretical fraud, and consequently to believe that Mormons are not real Christians (despite claiming to be.)
      - bigwavedave 5y ago
        > People who self-describe as Christians can't even universally agree which texts are authentic and holy and which are heretical frauds. The only thing they all universally share is the inclination to call themselves Christians. Interesting perspective- when I was much younger, I was taught that a Christian is anybody who believes that Christ is the Savior and that he atoned for the sins of humanity. Is there an "official" definition?
    - jdavis703 5y ago
      There is no criteria. Anyone who calls themselves Christian is a Christian. The same goes for any other religion. All religions have differing internal beliefs, so there is no objective definition of a “true believer.”
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - selcuka 5y ago
        I believe it's not the same for any other religion. For example conversions to Judaism are overseen by a religious court.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    How could a court possibly establish whether or not a belief is sincerely held? The whole thing is a farce.
    - gnopgnip 5y ago
      The same way the courts decide whether or not someone committed a crime or any other issue. The judge or jury ultimately decides the facts based on what is presented.
- jdavis703 5y ago
  It depends. I’m 99% certain the Amish would not approve of fingerprinting. But it’s certainly not a widespread belief among the most popular mainstream Christian sects. However some states allow for a religious exemption that is based on personal belief, so one doesn’t need their pastor or priest to agree.
  - technothrasher 5y ago
    Hmm, I had no idea one way or the other about the Amish and fingerprints, but you made me curious. Seems it's not so, as in Illinois they worked with the state to avoid getting photographed for their state ID by getting one based on their fingerprints instead. https://will.illinois.edu/news/story/amish-can-apply-for-state-ids-in-2015 https://will.illinois.edu/news/story/amish-can-apply-for-sta...
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      Ironically, the Amish position is based solely on their strong stance on Aniconism[0], but in the process of their objection they have revealed that the state ID system gives people the choice of having their forehead or their right hand recorded, which are precisely the areas where the "mark of the beast" is taken, according to the book of Revelation.[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism#Among_Christians_today https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism#Among_Christians_tod... [1] https://biblehub.com/revelation/13-16.htm https://biblehub.com/revelation/13-16.htm
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- keithnz 5y ago
  yeah, I'm confused what belief is held such that you can't be fingerprinted. My initial searching for what that might be is mostly "Mark of the Beast". Which seems odd.
  - slapfrog 5y ago
    The whole of Revelations is certainly odd, but that doesn't stop a whole lot of people from finding some interpretation of it they can believe in. That some people might interpret it to be a warning against biometrics doesn't strike me as particularly odd, relative to the oddness of other beliefs derived from [or justified using] this book.
  - sigzero 5y ago
    Fingerprinting could not in any way be interpreted as the "mark of the beast" because there is no mark put on the person during fingerprinting. So that wouldn't stand any scrutiny. Religious or otherwise.
    - amateurICEguy 5y ago
      You have to be careful when you interpret a religious passage. For starters you don't (do you?) speak the original language, so you're at the mercy of the translator for the term "mark" But, going more meta, most religious traditions don't have a strict textual interpretation of their texts. Certainly the author could not have known fingerprinting techniques 2000 years ago. It is not unreasonable to interpret "mark" to be an identifier. Of course then the "fingerprint" mark would have to be compatible with the rest of Revelations.
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        > Certainly the author could not have known fingerprinting techniques 2000 years ago. Citation needed. > It is not unreasonable to interpret "mark" to be an identifier. Adding an identifier, perhaps. But to interpret that passage to refer to taking pictures or imprints? That is unreasonable.
- smogcutter 5y ago
  Not a lawyer, but seems from the outside that they key thing is that another employee did get an alternate background check. So being told no accommodations are available is BS. Seems like a pretty straightforward argument from there to saying the employee is being discriminated against for a sincerely held religious belief. The belief itself being fringe hogwash is irrelevant. Plus the employee offering to accept an alternative form of verification seems to point to the belief (however dumb) being sincere.
  - sodality2 5y ago
    Ah, must've skimmed past that part! yeah, that seems pretty clear-cut. Thanks!
    - smogcutter 5y ago
      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.
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
        I suppose that means that a sincerely held religious belief need not actually be a tenet of the religion you follow, so long as you believe it, and believe it is related to your religion. Personally this seems like a gray area that is ripe for abuse. But I guess until such abuse becomes much more commonplace, we will not see a reform in the degree to which religious beliefs are favored by the courts. On the other hand, if such abuse becomes more prominent and causes more interference with how business gets done, then you could imagine a scenario where one-off beliefs are much less favored, and the state has to get involved in figuring out whether the belief is actually religious, or if it's just some random thing you believe that you attach religious significance to. (Distinguishing minority religious views from this will be extremely difficult.)
        5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- PostThisTooFast 5y ago
  Let's face it: The company did the right thing for its clients getting rid of a dumb-ass, even if it cost them $65K. Unless, of course, it was all a ruse to simply avoid being fingerprinted (and one would think that the company would've sought evidence... such as church attendance... of being a "devout Christian"). In that case... not such a dṳmb-ȧṡs.
- iammisc 5y ago
  The government will not and can not look into the provenance of your belief. Whether or not this is an 'actual christian belief' is not something the federal or state government can comment on. If the man holds it sincerely then the state must take him at his word. Edit: why am I being down voted ...? This is the accepted legal standard
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
latenightcoding 5y ago
most of my family agreed to get fingerprinted to get free gym membership (family friend runs the gym and you scan your thumb at the door for access). It pissed me off so much.
- version_five 5y ago
  Why did it piss you off? Is the fingerprint being used for something other than access? Is it even stored in a format that would allow it to be used for something else? I'm pretty privacy and personal freedom conscious- for example I wouldn't go anywhere that made me scan a QR code or use an app. But I can't think of any concern I have with a private business using my fingerprint as an access token, unless I'm also signing that they can use it for other stuff.
  - katzgrau 5y ago
    > unless I'm also signing that they can use it for other stuff. Person at desk during signup: "Just press agree and then insert your thump on the reader below." That "agree" part is where they inserted their vague allusions to doing what they want
  - PostThisTooFast 5y ago
    "I'm pretty privacy and personal freedom conscious- for example I wouldn't go anywhere that made me scan a QR code or use an app. But I can't think of any concern I have with a private business using my fingerprint as an access token" That is absolutely ridiculous and contradictory. You won't scan a QR code with a phone app, but you'll hand your fingerprints over to a private entity? For storage with unknown security and access by an unknown number of people? Dumb.
  - chuckee 5y ago
    > unless I'm also signing that they can use it for other stuff. I find your trust in the strength of a terms of service agreement baffling. If they get a court order it doesn't matter what you allowed them to do with it. And even without a court order, if they used your fingerprint in ways you didn't allow, how would you know? They wouldn't be the first company to break the law when they think they can get away with it. Even if you trust them, what about when they go bankrupt, or acquired by a chain gym, and all their assets (fingerprints included) suddenly belong to less-scrupulous people.
sneak 5y ago
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.
- IncRnd 5y ago
  Would you mind posting here and now web links to pictures of your face and your fingerprints?
  - arthurcolle 5y ago
    Please use IPFS [0] too, for posterity [0] https://ipfs.io/#install https://ipfs.io/#install
  - sneak 5y ago
    Pictures of my face are on my website, and have been uploaded to Facebook and Instagram many times by my friends. My fingerprints have been provided to several vendors and government agencies (Clear, TSA pre) who have industry-average data security (that is to say, I expect them to leak). None are secret. Come up to me the next time I make a public appearance and you are welcome to my fingerprints. :)
- torstenvl 5y ago
  So you wouldn't object if someone followed you to every restaurant and collected your fingerprints off the glasses you use? You wouldn't be a bit creeped out by that? Something doesn't have to be a secret for it to feel private.
  - sowbug 5y ago
    So you wouldn't object if someone followed you to every restaurant I think most readers stopped here.
    - cirrus3 5y ago
mastazi 5y ago
It seems that the decision to fire him was completely unjustified: > APRS had requested that its employees be fingerprinted as a result of a background check requirement of one of its clients > APRS terminated Harrington [...] without asking the client whether an exemption was available [...] even though alternatives to fingerprinting were available.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
hownottowrite 5y ago
Cached: https://archive.is/BVCdk https://archive.is/BVCdk
jasonhansel 5y ago
Time to start the Church of Not Getting Fingerprinted so that we can all get exempted.
- alasdair_ 5y ago
  I once created the Church of the Exploding Light to get around a municipal fireworks ban. Perhaps we could be part of the same meta-church?
- heresie-dabord 5y ago
  I propose a Church of Pacifism and Anti-Surveillance to get us out of all kinds of large-scale destructive mischief.
- mikeryan 5y ago
  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/Satanic-Temple-texas-abortion-law-16441269.php https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Sata...
  - Gunax 5y ago
    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 itself. They are daring the courts to call their belief insincere--something the courts are rightly trepidatious about deciding what constitutes bona-fide belief. It's pretty much the religious exceptionist's worst nightmare--a parody religion set up to leech off any religious benefits or exclusions. Okay, you don't believe in birth control? Well I don't believe in blood transfusions/cancer/insulin. Your move, Christians.
    - KittenInABox 5y ago
motohagiography 5y ago
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 you property represented by your mark? The point of privacy laws are that your consent is required, and taking things from you under duress or coercion is not consent.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  > The idea of a religious exemption isn't just some pastafarian variation Anyone’s assumptions or thoughts can qualify as a religion. At least for any consistent and useful definition of religion.
  - iammisc 5y ago
    And in the united states it does. A religion is any deeply held belief. That's the only standard.
    - ryandrake 5y ago
      But where do you draw the line? What if I have a deeply held religious belief that human sacrifice is required by god? Can I then go around killing people? There’s got to be some kind of limit.
      - wyattpeak 5y ago
        There are plenty of lines around what rights a genuinely held belief entitles you to. What the parent is saying is that there is no line between religious and other deeply-held beliefs.
      - judge2020 5y ago
        You draw the line at taxes. > Members of certain religious groups (including the Amish and Mennonites) may be exempt from paying Social Security taxes. To become exempt, they must: > Be a member of a religious sect that makes a reasonable provision of food, shelter and medical care for its dependent members and has done so continuously since December 31, 1950; https://faq.ssa.gov/en-us/Topic/article/KA-02411 https://faq.ssa.gov/en-us/Topic/article/KA-02411
dabinat 5y ago
Interesting that he was religiously opposed to fingerprinting but had no problem with the debt collection aspect. I seem to recall Jesus being not-too-complimentary about the tax collectors of the time who hounded people for money.
- treeman79 5y ago
  Jesus preached to debt/tax collectors, prosecutors, etc because they were the ones who needed it.
- slapfrog 5y ago
  Well he also told people to give Caesar what Caesar was owed. You can justify virtually any belief by picking different parts out of those books. Dunking on self-described Christians by trying to identify the "true" Christian beliefs and pointing out their deviation from that is utterly pointless. They've been doing this with each other for the better part of two thousand years, and all it amounted to was ever more division and disagreement.
- literallyaduck 5y ago
  They were money changers being thieves. For debt collection see Exodus 22:25. For tax collection, he wasn't opposed, if they were not stealing for personal gain. Matthew 17:24 and following for instructions to pay Roman taxes. Luke 19:8 for theft repayment by corrupt officials.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  There's a lot of things that people who never read the bible will never find out about. Numbers 31 > Now kill all the boys. > And kill every woman who has slept with a man, > but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    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 that chapter[0] and pointing out that at the time of the events described in Numbers 31, it was the standard practice of nations to commit cultural genocide against their enemies (to prevent a continuing cycle of violence), by killing off their males and their widows, leaving only the unmarried to assimilate into the victorious society. Less violently, it was common for men to defect to a foreign culture when taking a wife from that culture, which had been the case with Israelite men and Midianite women. It was that potential for cultural extinction (and literal extinction, as a deadly plague struck the Israelites after this) which lead to the war whose rules of engagement you quoted. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_31#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_31#Background
paulpauper 5y ago
How about the church of not needing a college degree to get a job
- literallyaduck 5y ago
  Sure, if you can attend the church conference of "My brother-in-law runs the place" they will find you an opportunity.
  - inetknght 5y ago
    Nah, sue for religious discrimination when it's found out that someone else already employed also doesn't have a degree.
FpUser 5y ago
Disappointed that the person had to claim religious beliefs to protect common dignity. Owners of those companies should be fined into oblivion. Maybe by then they will realize what a scum they are.
- jiqiren 5y ago
  The company is a debt collector - they are already a bunch of bloodsuckers from the start.
yoloyoloyoloa 5y ago
People should be winning money for refusing to be vaccinated just because such mandates are anti freedom.
blunte 5y ago
I suspect this is an engineered situation/story/post. I suspect it is designed to drum up conflict and destabilize a society. Who really benefits from this is up for debate, and I won't speculate. That out of the way, fingerprints and faces are essentially public. Unless you wear a mask and gloves in public, you are visible. And even so, you'll shed some DNA material here and there. If you're so concerned about that, you should wear a clean room suit. Since I think this is a social conflict bait situation, I won't bite. But we here at HN are hopefully of a higher level rational mind that we recognize that interacting in the current world means allowing quite a lot of observation of who goes where. I'm not talking about Facebook, but I am talking about facial recognition and people folling you with evidence bags (if some organization believes there is value in doing so).
- chime 5y ago
  Thank you for pointing this out. I wish more people thought like this instead of instantly reacting. It turns out the Internet in the real-world is opposite of Monsters Inc. The crux of the movie was that children's laughter had more power than their frightful screams. Publishers have discovered that rage-inducing click-bait is more profitable than in-depth stories that help us resolve issues. It doesn't matter if I wholeheartedly agree with an article that causes me to have negative emotions. Yes, the climate is getting worse. Yes, a few power plants and containers ships are responsible for a significant fraction of the pollutants. Yes, humans are not working to fix it fast enough. Yes, politician X supports horrible thing Y. Nevertheless, I don't recall giving a push notification the right to trigger my emotions.
- kome 5y ago
  facial recognition technologies and fingerprinting are not normal and please, don't try to normalize them. biometric surveillance technologies (such as facial recognition) in public places should be limited, but also other form of biometric data — such as of faces but also of gait, fingerprints, DNA, voice, keystrokes and other biometric or behavioural signals. When monitored, we change behaviour and self-censor. When categorised, we are judged and discriminated against. It's a vicious circle of power imbalances. This is NOT normal.
yumraj 5y ago
The article does not say whether the person has a driving license or another form of ID that requires fingerprinting. Note, I’m not saying that an employer should be allowed to fingerprint, which they should not. I’m simply pointing to the absurdity of the religious exemption as I’m pretty sure no religion says that a person cannot be fingerprinted.
imglorp 5y ago
It seems there are plenty of government interactions that need fingerprinting now. FINRA and OPM/DOD come to mind, plus anything involving children typically needs a federal and state print check.
wumpus 5y ago
I recently took a job with a charity which is run by the federal government. I had to be ink-fingerprinted to take the job. Ink fingerprinting is rare these days. I had to go the San Jose main jail to have it done -- no appointment needed, they have 24x7x365 service. The woman who took my prints seemed thrilled to be working with a cooperative person. I was previously fingerprinted because of securities industry requirements. There's no way this case is going to finish well for the plaintiff -- securities laws go back a long way.
bob229 5y ago
Lol religious special treatment is pathetic. Imagine a communist claiming special treatment because of his marxist beliefs.

203 points by miles 5y ago

"Harrington informed APRS in July 2017 that having his fingerprints captured was contrary to his 'sincerely held religious belief.'" Good on him, but I thought they actually checked up on the whole "religious beliefs" thing? Is this an actual Christian belief? Edit: "Plaintiff, a devout Christian, informed AST that the Book of Revelation prohibits the “mark of the devil” which she believed included fingerprinting and that she would not get into Heaven if fingerprinted. She asked AST for an accommodation, such as undergoing a different type of background check that did not require fingerprinting. AST purportedly informed her that no accommodations were available and terminated her employment for refusing to comply with CPSL’s fingerprinting requirement. Asserting that AST allowed at least one employee with “unreadable” fingerprints to participate in an alternative background check, plaintiff’s ensuing lawsuit alleged religious discrimination and unlawful retaliation." https://tbowleslaw.com/religious-objection-mandatory-fingerprinting/ https://tbowleslaw.com/religious-objection-mandatory-fingerp...

whiddershins 5y ago
Depending on the Christian denomination there may be explicit provision for personal conscience in interpreting certain things within the context of your faith.
_3u10 5y ago
That’s orthogonal to court, the standard is not whether others hold that belief but whether the belief is sincerely held. Given that he identifies as Christian and whatever he believes got a ruling in his favor I would say that it’s an “actual” belief.
- keithnz 5y ago
  It is a religion, with many denominations. Not quite sure what the criteria is for when something varies such that it wouldn't be considered Christian.
  - slapfrog 5y ago
    > It is a religion, with many denominations. The whole of it defies neat categorization. People who self-describe as Christians can't even universally agree which texts are authentic and holy and which are heretical frauds. The only thing they all universally share is the inclination to call themselves Christians (more than a few are eager to contest whether other self-described Christians are in fact Christians.) One particular example: I was raised to believe that the Book of Mormon is a heretical fraud, and consequently to believe that Mormons are not real Christians (despite claiming to be.)
    - bigwavedave 5y ago
      > People who self-describe as Christians can't even universally agree which texts are authentic and holy and which are heretical frauds. The only thing they all universally share is the inclination to call themselves Christians. Interesting perspective- when I was much younger, I was taught that a Christian is anybody who believes that Christ is the Savior and that he atoned for the sins of humanity. Is there an "official" definition?
  - jdavis703 5y ago
    There is no criteria. Anyone who calls themselves Christian is a Christian. The same goes for any other religion. All religions have differing internal beliefs, so there is no objective definition of a “true believer.”
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - selcuka 5y ago
      I believe it's not the same for any other religion. For example conversions to Judaism are overseen by a religious court.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  How could a court possibly establish whether or not a belief is sincerely held? The whole thing is a farce.
  - gnopgnip 5y ago
    The same way the courts decide whether or not someone committed a crime or any other issue. The judge or jury ultimately decides the facts based on what is presented.
jdavis703 5y ago
It depends. I’m 99% certain the Amish would not approve of fingerprinting. But it’s certainly not a widespread belief among the most popular mainstream Christian sects. However some states allow for a religious exemption that is based on personal belief, so one doesn’t need their pastor or priest to agree.
- technothrasher 5y ago
  Hmm, I had no idea one way or the other about the Amish and fingerprints, but you made me curious. Seems it's not so, as in Illinois they worked with the state to avoid getting photographed for their state ID by getting one based on their fingerprints instead. https://will.illinois.edu/news/story/amish-can-apply-for-state-ids-in-2015 https://will.illinois.edu/news/story/amish-can-apply-for-sta...
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    Ironically, the Amish position is based solely on their strong stance on Aniconism[0], but in the process of their objection they have revealed that the state ID system gives people the choice of having their forehead or their right hand recorded, which are precisely the areas where the "mark of the beast" is taken, according to the book of Revelation.[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism#Among_Christians_today https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism#Among_Christians_tod... [1] https://biblehub.com/revelation/13-16.htm https://biblehub.com/revelation/13-16.htm
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
keithnz 5y ago
yeah, I'm confused what belief is held such that you can't be fingerprinted. My initial searching for what that might be is mostly "Mark of the Beast". Which seems odd.
- slapfrog 5y ago
  The whole of Revelations is certainly odd, but that doesn't stop a whole lot of people from finding some interpretation of it they can believe in. That some people might interpret it to be a warning against biometrics doesn't strike me as particularly odd, relative to the oddness of other beliefs derived from [or justified using] this book.
- sigzero 5y ago
  Fingerprinting could not in any way be interpreted as the "mark of the beast" because there is no mark put on the person during fingerprinting. So that wouldn't stand any scrutiny. Religious or otherwise.
  - amateurICEguy 5y ago
    You have to be careful when you interpret a religious passage. For starters you don't (do you?) speak the original language, so you're at the mercy of the translator for the term "mark" But, going more meta, most religious traditions don't have a strict textual interpretation of their texts. Certainly the author could not have known fingerprinting techniques 2000 years ago. It is not unreasonable to interpret "mark" to be an identifier. Of course then the "fingerprint" mark would have to be compatible with the rest of Revelations.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      > Certainly the author could not have known fingerprinting techniques 2000 years ago. Citation needed. > It is not unreasonable to interpret "mark" to be an identifier. Adding an identifier, perhaps. But to interpret that passage to refer to taking pictures or imprints? That is unreasonable.
smogcutter 5y ago
Not a lawyer, but seems from the outside that they key thing is that another employee did get an alternate background check. So being told no accommodations are available is BS. Seems like a pretty straightforward argument from there to saying the employee is being discriminated against for a sincerely held religious belief. The belief itself being fringe hogwash is irrelevant. Plus the employee offering to accept an alternative form of verification seems to point to the belief (however dumb) being sincere.
- sodality2 5y ago
  Ah, must've skimmed past that part! yeah, that seems pretty clear-cut. Thanks!
  - smogcutter 5y ago
    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.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
      I suppose that means that a sincerely held religious belief need not actually be a tenet of the religion you follow, so long as you believe it, and believe it is related to your religion. Personally this seems like a gray area that is ripe for abuse. But I guess until such abuse becomes much more commonplace, we will not see a reform in the degree to which religious beliefs are favored by the courts. On the other hand, if such abuse becomes more prominent and causes more interference with how business gets done, then you could imagine a scenario where one-off beliefs are much less favored, and the state has to get involved in figuring out whether the belief is actually religious, or if it's just some random thing you believe that you attach religious significance to. (Distinguishing minority religious views from this will be extremely difficult.)
      - 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
PostThisTooFast 5y ago
Let's face it: The company did the right thing for its clients getting rid of a dumb-ass, even if it cost them $65K. Unless, of course, it was all a ruse to simply avoid being fingerprinted (and one would think that the company would've sought evidence... such as church attendance... of being a "devout Christian"). In that case... not such a dṳmb-ȧṡs.
iammisc 5y ago
The government will not and can not look into the provenance of your belief. Whether or not this is an 'actual christian belief' is not something the federal or state government can comment on. If the man holds it sincerely then the state must take him at his word. Edit: why am I being down voted ...? This is the accepted legal standard
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

latenightcoding 5y ago

most of my family agreed to get fingerprinted to get free gym membership (family friend runs the gym and you scan your thumb at the door for access). It pissed me off so much.

version_five 5y ago
Why did it piss you off? Is the fingerprint being used for something other than access? Is it even stored in a format that would allow it to be used for something else? I'm pretty privacy and personal freedom conscious- for example I wouldn't go anywhere that made me scan a QR code or use an app. But I can't think of any concern I have with a private business using my fingerprint as an access token, unless I'm also signing that they can use it for other stuff.
- katzgrau 5y ago
  > unless I'm also signing that they can use it for other stuff. Person at desk during signup: "Just press agree and then insert your thump on the reader below." That "agree" part is where they inserted their vague allusions to doing what they want
- PostThisTooFast 5y ago
  "I'm pretty privacy and personal freedom conscious- for example I wouldn't go anywhere that made me scan a QR code or use an app. But I can't think of any concern I have with a private business using my fingerprint as an access token" That is absolutely ridiculous and contradictory. You won't scan a QR code with a phone app, but you'll hand your fingerprints over to a private entity? For storage with unknown security and access by an unknown number of people? Dumb.
- chuckee 5y ago
  > unless I'm also signing that they can use it for other stuff. I find your trust in the strength of a terms of service agreement baffling. If they get a court order it doesn't matter what you allowed them to do with it. And even without a court order, if they used your fingerprint in ways you didn't allow, how would you know? They wouldn't be the first company to break the law when they think they can get away with it. Even if you trust them, what about when they go bankrupt, or acquired by a chain gym, and all their assets (fingerprints included) suddenly belong to less-scrupulous people.

sneak 5y ago

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.

IncRnd 5y ago
Would you mind posting here and now web links to pictures of your face and your fingerprints?
- arthurcolle 5y ago
  Please use IPFS [0] too, for posterity [0] https://ipfs.io/#install https://ipfs.io/#install
- sneak 5y ago
  Pictures of my face are on my website, and have been uploaded to Facebook and Instagram many times by my friends. My fingerprints have been provided to several vendors and government agencies (Clear, TSA pre) who have industry-average data security (that is to say, I expect them to leak). None are secret. Come up to me the next time I make a public appearance and you are welcome to my fingerprints. :)
torstenvl 5y ago
So you wouldn't object if someone followed you to every restaurant and collected your fingerprints off the glasses you use? You wouldn't be a bit creeped out by that? Something doesn't have to be a secret for it to feel private.
- sowbug 5y ago
  So you wouldn't object if someone followed you to every restaurant I think most readers stopped here.
  - cirrus3 5y ago

mastazi 5y ago

It seems that the decision to fire him was completely unjustified: > APRS had requested that its employees be fingerprinted as a result of a background check requirement of one of its clients > APRS terminated Harrington [...] without asking the client whether an exemption was available [...] even though alternatives to fingerprinting were available.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

hownottowrite 5y ago

Cached: https://archive.is/BVCdk https://archive.is/BVCdk

jasonhansel 5y ago

Time to start the Church of Not Getting Fingerprinted so that we can all get exempted.

alasdair_ 5y ago
I once created the Church of the Exploding Light to get around a municipal fireworks ban. Perhaps we could be part of the same meta-church?
heresie-dabord 5y ago
I propose a Church of Pacifism and Anti-Surveillance to get us out of all kinds of large-scale destructive mischief.
mikeryan 5y ago
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/Satanic-Temple-texas-abortion-law-16441269.php https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Sata...
- Gunax 5y ago
  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 itself. They are daring the courts to call their belief insincere--something the courts are rightly trepidatious about deciding what constitutes bona-fide belief. It's pretty much the religious exceptionist's worst nightmare--a parody religion set up to leech off any religious benefits or exclusions. Okay, you don't believe in birth control? Well I don't believe in blood transfusions/cancer/insulin. Your move, Christians.
  - KittenInABox 5y ago

motohagiography 5y ago

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 you property represented by your mark? The point of privacy laws are that your consent is required, and taking things from you under duress or coercion is not consent.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
> The idea of a religious exemption isn't just some pastafarian variation Anyone’s assumptions or thoughts can qualify as a religion. At least for any consistent and useful definition of religion.
- iammisc 5y ago
  And in the united states it does. A religion is any deeply held belief. That's the only standard.
  - ryandrake 5y ago
    But where do you draw the line? What if I have a deeply held religious belief that human sacrifice is required by god? Can I then go around killing people? There’s got to be some kind of limit.
    - wyattpeak 5y ago
      There are plenty of lines around what rights a genuinely held belief entitles you to. What the parent is saying is that there is no line between religious and other deeply-held beliefs.
    - judge2020 5y ago
      You draw the line at taxes. > Members of certain religious groups (including the Amish and Mennonites) may be exempt from paying Social Security taxes. To become exempt, they must: > Be a member of a religious sect that makes a reasonable provision of food, shelter and medical care for its dependent members and has done so continuously since December 31, 1950; https://faq.ssa.gov/en-us/Topic/article/KA-02411 https://faq.ssa.gov/en-us/Topic/article/KA-02411

dabinat 5y ago

Interesting that he was religiously opposed to fingerprinting but had no problem with the debt collection aspect. I seem to recall Jesus being not-too-complimentary about the tax collectors of the time who hounded people for money.

treeman79 5y ago
Jesus preached to debt/tax collectors, prosecutors, etc because they were the ones who needed it.
slapfrog 5y ago
Well he also told people to give Caesar what Caesar was owed. You can justify virtually any belief by picking different parts out of those books. Dunking on self-described Christians by trying to identify the "true" Christian beliefs and pointing out their deviation from that is utterly pointless. They've been doing this with each other for the better part of two thousand years, and all it amounted to was ever more division and disagreement.
literallyaduck 5y ago
They were money changers being thieves. For debt collection see Exodus 22:25. For tax collection, he wasn't opposed, if they were not stealing for personal gain. Matthew 17:24 and following for instructions to pay Roman taxes. Luke 19:8 for theft repayment by corrupt officials.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
There's a lot of things that people who never read the bible will never find out about. Numbers 31 > Now kill all the boys. > And kill every woman who has slept with a man, > but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  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 that chapter[0] and pointing out that at the time of the events described in Numbers 31, it was the standard practice of nations to commit cultural genocide against their enemies (to prevent a continuing cycle of violence), by killing off their males and their widows, leaving only the unmarried to assimilate into the victorious society. Less violently, it was common for men to defect to a foreign culture when taking a wife from that culture, which had been the case with Israelite men and Midianite women. It was that potential for cultural extinction (and literal extinction, as a deadly plague struck the Israelites after this) which lead to the war whose rules of engagement you quoted. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_31#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_31#Background

paulpauper 5y ago

How about the church of not needing a college degree to get a job

literallyaduck 5y ago
Sure, if you can attend the church conference of "My brother-in-law runs the place" they will find you an opportunity.
- inetknght 5y ago
  Nah, sue for religious discrimination when it's found out that someone else already employed also doesn't have a degree.

FpUser 5y ago

Disappointed that the person had to claim religious beliefs to protect common dignity. Owners of those companies should be fined into oblivion. Maybe by then they will realize what a scum they are.

jiqiren 5y ago
The company is a debt collector - they are already a bunch of bloodsuckers from the start.

yoloyoloyoloa 5y ago

People should be winning money for refusing to be vaccinated just because such mandates are anti freedom.

blunte 5y ago

I suspect this is an engineered situation/story/post. I suspect it is designed to drum up conflict and destabilize a society. Who really benefits from this is up for debate, and I won't speculate. That out of the way, fingerprints and faces are essentially public. Unless you wear a mask and gloves in public, you are visible. And even so, you'll shed some DNA material here and there. If you're so concerned about that, you should wear a clean room suit. Since I think this is a social conflict bait situation, I won't bite. But we here at HN are hopefully of a higher level rational mind that we recognize that interacting in the current world means allowing quite a lot of observation of who goes where. I'm not talking about Facebook, but I am talking about facial recognition and people folling you with evidence bags (if some organization believes there is value in doing so).

chime 5y ago
Thank you for pointing this out. I wish more people thought like this instead of instantly reacting. It turns out the Internet in the real-world is opposite of Monsters Inc. The crux of the movie was that children's laughter had more power than their frightful screams. Publishers have discovered that rage-inducing click-bait is more profitable than in-depth stories that help us resolve issues. It doesn't matter if I wholeheartedly agree with an article that causes me to have negative emotions. Yes, the climate is getting worse. Yes, a few power plants and containers ships are responsible for a significant fraction of the pollutants. Yes, humans are not working to fix it fast enough. Yes, politician X supports horrible thing Y. Nevertheless, I don't recall giving a push notification the right to trigger my emotions.
kome 5y ago
facial recognition technologies and fingerprinting are not normal and please, don't try to normalize them. biometric surveillance technologies (such as facial recognition) in public places should be limited, but also other form of biometric data — such as of faces but also of gait, fingerprints, DNA, voice, keystrokes and other biometric or behavioural signals. When monitored, we change behaviour and self-censor. When categorised, we are judged and discriminated against. It's a vicious circle of power imbalances. This is NOT normal.

yumraj 5y ago

The article does not say whether the person has a driving license or another form of ID that requires fingerprinting. Note, I’m not saying that an employer should be allowed to fingerprint, which they should not. I’m simply pointing to the absurdity of the religious exemption as I’m pretty sure no religion says that a person cannot be fingerprinted.

imglorp 5y ago

It seems there are plenty of government interactions that need fingerprinting now. FINRA and OPM/DOD come to mind, plus anything involving children typically needs a federal and state print check.

wumpus 5y ago

I recently took a job with a charity which is run by the federal government. I had to be ink-fingerprinted to take the job. Ink fingerprinting is rare these days. I had to go the San Jose main jail to have it done -- no appointment needed, they have 24x7x365 service. The woman who took my prints seemed thrilled to be working with a cooperative person. I was previously fingerprinted because of securities industry requirements. There's no way this case is going to finish well for the plaintiff -- securities laws go back a long way.

bob229 5y ago

Lol religious special treatment is pathetic. Imagine a communist claiming special treatment because of his marxist beliefs.