14 ms·

The problem in this case would be they seem to be hiring almost exclusively from a rather obscure religious group. That means they're illegally discriminating a

The problem in this case would be they seem to be hiring almost exclusively from a rather obscure religious group. That means they're illegally discriminating against members other religions.

woodruffw 4y ago
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.
- throwoutway 4y ago
  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
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    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 doctrines. In other words, an internal decision by Google to terminate cult members because of their history of sex abuse or self dealing is unlikely expose them to civil litigation risk. [1]: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-10-18-mn-4552-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-10-18-mn-4552-s...
    - volume 4y ago
      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?
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        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.
      - bobthepanda 4y ago
        It is if you are talking about discrimination according to the law, which is what the thread has been debating.
    - hinkley 4y ago
      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.
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        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.
        jonas21 4y ago
        The case you cited says nothing of the sort. It only establishes that a religious organization can be sued for fraud if it uses coercive persuasion ("brainwashing") techniques [1]. It doesn't make a statement as to what is or isn't considered a religion. It's worth noting that the Fellowship of Friends is recognized by both the IRS and California as a tax-exempt religious organization. And, at least from my perspective, it doesn't sound all that different from Scientology, which does enjoy First Amendment protections as a religion. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molko_v._Holy_Spirit_Ass%27n_for_the_Unification_of_World_Christianity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molko_v._Holy_Spirit_Ass%27n_f... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headley_v._Church_of_Scientology_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headley_v._Church_of_Scientolo...
        hinkley 4y ago
        Note I said what the Rule of Law can't do, not whether it succeeded in doing anything. A Fortune 500 company I worked for had anti-discrimination training that said it was okay to discriminate against 45 year olds. And their harassment training said that it's not illegal for a bisexual manager to flirt with or grabass everyone because they're not being selective about it. I hope to god some later employees figured out how twisted both of those were and that, even if they are both true, you shouldn't call attention to it in ethics training, ffs.
    - mullingitover 4y ago
      The only real difference between a cult and a religion is real estate.
    - jordemort 4y ago
      Are you saying that hiring on the basis of cult membership would not qualify as religious discrimination, because cults are not religions?
    - tomrod 4y ago
      Many religions are cults, and many cults are religions. Ergo religious discrimination could certainly happen.
    - skissane 4y ago
      > Cults are not religions There is no universal consensus on how to define the term "cult". There are multiple competing definitions. In 1932, the sociologist Howard P. Becker introduced a fourfold classification of religious groups, into cults, sects, denominations and ecclesias (which was in turn an expansion of the theologian Ernst Troeltsch's earlier two-fold classification of religious groups as "churches" or "sects"). Cults and sects are religious groups with a high degree of tension with the surrounding society; cults have novel beliefs (in the context of that society), sects have traditional beliefs. Denominations are established religious groups with low tension with their society, but who do not dominate it. An ecclesia is a de jure or de facto state religion. By this set of definitions, cults are religions, if by "religion" one means "religious group". Many sociologists of religion continue to use Becker's definitions today; they are still part of the standard content of most university-level introductory courses on the sociology of religion – although not all sociologists endorse them, and some have put forward alternative proposals (such as Roy Wallis' proposal that the defining feature of cults is "epistemological individualism".) In most sociological use, "cult" is a value-neutral, non-judgemental term; in colloquial English, it has become a derogatory term, implying the group is harmful or aberrant. Some psychologists have developed formal definitions of "cults" as psychologically harmful organisations – it appears those psychologists were ignorant of the prior use of the term in sociology (or, possibly, knew about it but didn't care.) Many evangelical Christians promote a theological definition of the term "cult", in which it essentially means "Christian group we judge to be heretical"–in some cases, the label "cult" is even extended to include all non-Christian religions. You seem to be suggesting there is some legal definition of the term "cult", in the case law of some American states, including a legal distinction between "cult" and "religion". As evidence for this, you point to a newspaper article summarising the 1988 Supreme Court of California decision Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn. However, the newspaper article you cite never actually uses the word "cult" non-attributively–it is citing the use of the word by others, not using the word itself–and it is citing the use of the word by the plaintiff's expert witnesses and by activist groups, not the Court's justices as using the word. And, if you read the actual text of the decision [0], while it cites a number of journal articles and books with the word Cult in their titles, it never actually uses that word itself. I am wondering if maybe you are projecting this binary distinction which exists in your own mind, between "cults" and "religions", on to case law in which that distinction is never actually drawn. On the contrary, Justice Stanley Mosk's decision assumes that the alleged "cult" (in this case, The Unification Church) is a religion, and the case turns on what are the legal standards for fraud and emotional distress claims against religious groups. The Court's judgement is that you can sue a religious group for fraud and emotional distress, by alleging deceptive recruiting practices, brainwashing, etc; and that such lawsuits are not barred by the First Amendment. The actual decision doesn't turn at all on any cult-vs-religion distinction, the same legal standard applies to all religious groups, whether "cults" or not. And it was not a decision on whether or not the Unification Church actually had engaged in any such activities, or whether they were a "cult"; it was simply a preliminary ruling that the case against them could proceed to trial. (Ultimately, the case never went to trial, it was settled.) [1] https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/molko-v-holy-spirit-assn-30806 https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/molko-v-holy-spirit-assn...
- godmode2019 4y ago
  Surely that's not true? Islam for example is a religion, that you can not leave.
  - selimthegrim 4y ago
    <citation needed>
    - bowsamic 4y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam > As of 2014, there were eight Muslim-majority countries where apostasy from Islam was punishable by death,[17][18][19] and another thirteen where there were penal or civil penalties such as jail, fines or loss of child custody.
    - renox 4y ago
      Seriously? OK https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam
    - rndgermandude 4y ago
      Overview and some good further references to primary sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam >As of 2014, there were eight Muslim-majority countries where apostasy from Islam was punishable by death, and another thirteen where there were penal or civil penalties such as jail, fines or loss of child custody. I'd say at least in those eight death penalty countries, you practically are not allowed to leave. And if the state letting you live but is taking away your children from you, you'll too think twice about leaving, too... In some regions, while apostasy is not official punished by law, people will still punish it extra-legally e.g. by committing "honor killings". Of course, this does not reflect all of Islam/all Muslims, and what people think about how apostates should be dealt with varies a lot regionally. If it even is legally (under religious laws) possible to leave the religion is a contested issue between theological scholars, however the bulk of theological scholars seem to consider it an absolute crime against God, but may disagree on whether it's up to people to punish the crime, or punishment be left to God. But even in Western countries there can be significant support within Muslim communities to harshly punish apostates. > A similar survey of the Muslim population in the United Kingdom, in 2007, found nearly a third of 16 to 24-year-old faithful believed that Muslims who convert to another religion should be executed, while less than a fifth of those over 55 believed the same. [0] That said, other religions, including an in particular Christianity, historically haven't been nice to apostates, either. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jan/29/thinktanks.religion https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jan/29/thinktanks.religi...
- otikik 4y ago
  Maybe this is a linguistic misunderstanding. Languages other than English don’t have different words for “sect” and “cult”. For example in Spanish it’s all “secta”.
- nitwit005 4y ago
  I was not attempting to define a cult, and the definition of a cult does not matter in this context. What matters is if they're discriminating against people who are not members.
- fourthark 4y ago
  You are arguing that it would be alright for Google to fire the cult members. Parent comments argued that Google is liable for allowing the cult to discriminate against non cult members.
kazinator 4y ago
While that is true, I don't think that's such as useful take. They are mainly discriminating against people who are more qualified for the jobs; basically the entire world that isn't Oregon House. If the Crips gang infiltrated Google and were only hiring Crips, you wouldn't say that they are unfairly discriminating against other perfectly good gangs like Bloods, as the main issue. (I understand that the analogy is far from perfect, because gang membership isn't a constitutionally protected class, but still ...)
- MMGCA 4y ago
  I understand the team and around is about 250 people, so even if all 12 are somehow related to the group that's a fraction.
londons_explore 4y ago
They argue in the article that Google hires fairly from the pool of applicants, but that the pool of applicants often includes members of this religious sect because people employed at the company encourage their friends to apply, who are often also members of the sect. If that is true, it isn't really Google's fault. If it's false, I doubt there will be any documentary evidence to say so - these people aren't stupid, they won't have said "make sure you only hire my religion" in an email.

The problem in this case would be they seem to be hiring almost exclusively from a rather obscure religious group. That means they're illegally discriminating against members other religions.

woodruffw 4y ago

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.

throwoutway 4y ago
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
- woodruffw 4y ago
  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 doctrines. In other words, an internal decision by Google to terminate cult members because of their history of sex abuse or self dealing is unlikely expose them to civil litigation risk. [1]: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-10-18-mn-4552-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-10-18-mn-4552-s...
  - volume 4y ago
    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?
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      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.
    - bobthepanda 4y ago
      It is if you are talking about discrimination according to the law, which is what the thread has been debating.
  - hinkley 4y ago
    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.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      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.
      - jonas21 4y ago
        The case you cited says nothing of the sort. It only establishes that a religious organization can be sued for fraud if it uses coercive persuasion ("brainwashing") techniques [1]. It doesn't make a statement as to what is or isn't considered a religion. It's worth noting that the Fellowship of Friends is recognized by both the IRS and California as a tax-exempt religious organization. And, at least from my perspective, it doesn't sound all that different from Scientology, which does enjoy First Amendment protections as a religion. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molko_v._Holy_Spirit_Ass%27n_for_the_Unification_of_World_Christianity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molko_v._Holy_Spirit_Ass%27n_f... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headley_v._Church_of_Scientology_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headley_v._Church_of_Scientolo...
      - hinkley 4y ago
        Note I said what the Rule of Law can't do, not whether it succeeded in doing anything. A Fortune 500 company I worked for had anti-discrimination training that said it was okay to discriminate against 45 year olds. And their harassment training said that it's not illegal for a bisexual manager to flirt with or grabass everyone because they're not being selective about it. I hope to god some later employees figured out how twisted both of those were and that, even if they are both true, you shouldn't call attention to it in ethics training, ffs.
  - mullingitover 4y ago
    The only real difference between a cult and a religion is real estate.
  - jordemort 4y ago
    Are you saying that hiring on the basis of cult membership would not qualify as religious discrimination, because cults are not religions?
  - tomrod 4y ago
    Many religions are cults, and many cults are religions. Ergo religious discrimination could certainly happen.
  - skissane 4y ago
    > Cults are not religions There is no universal consensus on how to define the term "cult". There are multiple competing definitions. In 1932, the sociologist Howard P. Becker introduced a fourfold classification of religious groups, into cults, sects, denominations and ecclesias (which was in turn an expansion of the theologian Ernst Troeltsch's earlier two-fold classification of religious groups as "churches" or "sects"). Cults and sects are religious groups with a high degree of tension with the surrounding society; cults have novel beliefs (in the context of that society), sects have traditional beliefs. Denominations are established religious groups with low tension with their society, but who do not dominate it. An ecclesia is a de jure or de facto state religion. By this set of definitions, cults are religions, if by "religion" one means "religious group". Many sociologists of religion continue to use Becker's definitions today; they are still part of the standard content of most university-level introductory courses on the sociology of religion – although not all sociologists endorse them, and some have put forward alternative proposals (such as Roy Wallis' proposal that the defining feature of cults is "epistemological individualism".) In most sociological use, "cult" is a value-neutral, non-judgemental term; in colloquial English, it has become a derogatory term, implying the group is harmful or aberrant. Some psychologists have developed formal definitions of "cults" as psychologically harmful organisations – it appears those psychologists were ignorant of the prior use of the term in sociology (or, possibly, knew about it but didn't care.) Many evangelical Christians promote a theological definition of the term "cult", in which it essentially means "Christian group we judge to be heretical"–in some cases, the label "cult" is even extended to include all non-Christian religions. You seem to be suggesting there is some legal definition of the term "cult", in the case law of some American states, including a legal distinction between "cult" and "religion". As evidence for this, you point to a newspaper article summarising the 1988 Supreme Court of California decision Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn. However, the newspaper article you cite never actually uses the word "cult" non-attributively–it is citing the use of the word by others, not using the word itself–and it is citing the use of the word by the plaintiff's expert witnesses and by activist groups, not the Court's justices as using the word. And, if you read the actual text of the decision [0], while it cites a number of journal articles and books with the word Cult in their titles, it never actually uses that word itself. I am wondering if maybe you are projecting this binary distinction which exists in your own mind, between "cults" and "religions", on to case law in which that distinction is never actually drawn. On the contrary, Justice Stanley Mosk's decision assumes that the alleged "cult" (in this case, The Unification Church) is a religion, and the case turns on what are the legal standards for fraud and emotional distress claims against religious groups. The Court's judgement is that you can sue a religious group for fraud and emotional distress, by alleging deceptive recruiting practices, brainwashing, etc; and that such lawsuits are not barred by the First Amendment. The actual decision doesn't turn at all on any cult-vs-religion distinction, the same legal standard applies to all religious groups, whether "cults" or not. And it was not a decision on whether or not the Unification Church actually had engaged in any such activities, or whether they were a "cult"; it was simply a preliminary ruling that the case against them could proceed to trial. (Ultimately, the case never went to trial, it was settled.) [1] https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/molko-v-holy-spirit-assn-30806 https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/molko-v-holy-spirit-assn...
godmode2019 4y ago
Surely that's not true? Islam for example is a religion, that you can not leave.
- selimthegrim 4y ago
  <citation needed>
  - bowsamic 4y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam > As of 2014, there were eight Muslim-majority countries where apostasy from Islam was punishable by death,[17][18][19] and another thirteen where there were penal or civil penalties such as jail, fines or loss of child custody.
  - renox 4y ago
    Seriously? OK https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam
  - rndgermandude 4y ago
    Overview and some good further references to primary sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam >As of 2014, there were eight Muslim-majority countries where apostasy from Islam was punishable by death, and another thirteen where there were penal or civil penalties such as jail, fines or loss of child custody. I'd say at least in those eight death penalty countries, you practically are not allowed to leave. And if the state letting you live but is taking away your children from you, you'll too think twice about leaving, too... In some regions, while apostasy is not official punished by law, people will still punish it extra-legally e.g. by committing "honor killings". Of course, this does not reflect all of Islam/all Muslims, and what people think about how apostates should be dealt with varies a lot regionally. If it even is legally (under religious laws) possible to leave the religion is a contested issue between theological scholars, however the bulk of theological scholars seem to consider it an absolute crime against God, but may disagree on whether it's up to people to punish the crime, or punishment be left to God. But even in Western countries there can be significant support within Muslim communities to harshly punish apostates. > A similar survey of the Muslim population in the United Kingdom, in 2007, found nearly a third of 16 to 24-year-old faithful believed that Muslims who convert to another religion should be executed, while less than a fifth of those over 55 believed the same. [0] That said, other religions, including an in particular Christianity, historically haven't been nice to apostates, either. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jan/29/thinktanks.religion https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jan/29/thinktanks.religi...
otikik 4y ago
Maybe this is a linguistic misunderstanding. Languages other than English don’t have different words for “sect” and “cult”. For example in Spanish it’s all “secta”.
nitwit005 4y ago
I was not attempting to define a cult, and the definition of a cult does not matter in this context. What matters is if they're discriminating against people who are not members.
fourthark 4y ago
You are arguing that it would be alright for Google to fire the cult members. Parent comments argued that Google is liable for allowing the cult to discriminate against non cult members.

kazinator 4y ago

While that is true, I don't think that's such as useful take. They are mainly discriminating against people who are more qualified for the jobs; basically the entire world that isn't Oregon House. If the Crips gang infiltrated Google and were only hiring Crips, you wouldn't say that they are unfairly discriminating against other perfectly good gangs like Bloods, as the main issue. (I understand that the analogy is far from perfect, because gang membership isn't a constitutionally protected class, but still ...)

MMGCA 4y ago
I understand the team and around is about 250 people, so even if all 12 are somehow related to the group that's a fraction.

londons_explore 4y ago

They argue in the article that Google hires fairly from the pool of applicants, but that the pool of applicants often includes members of this religious sect because people employed at the company encourage their friends to apply, who are often also members of the sect. If that is true, it isn't really Google's fault. If it's false, I doubt there will be any documentary evidence to say so - these people aren't stupid, they won't have said "make sure you only hire my religion" in an email.