Hacker News
points by AndrewKemendo 1 day ago | 0 comments
> “It has to be a deeply held ethical commitment that’s analogous to a religious commitment,” he said. “That’s a fact question that presumably the employer will investigate.”

I’m curious if the opposite would work:

“As a transhumanist my religion compels me to share everything with my machines, otherwise they can’t ensure my mind uploading is up to date “

I see no reason transhumanism is any less of a religion than humanism.

[–] rhodey 1 day ago
> I see no reason transhumanism is any less of a religion than humanism.

TBH I agree. Religious exemptions at large only exist for the big name religions but the arguments pushed often make claims about it being a moral/ethical precedent and its just not true. I think its a matter of PR and politics if you're able to get an exemption kind of same game as a lot of things.

[–] eesmith 1 day ago
There's also the bit about undue burden.

We see this with people who believe it is a religious requirement to share their faith at work, even when their co-workers say they don't want to hear it.

We see this with people who say their religious belief says they don't take orders from a women, even if that woman is their boss.

If your transhumanist religion compels you to share PII with your machines in a way which breaks the law, then there's likely an undue burden.

If it means you need access to a power plug during lunch so your devices can scan your brain for 10 minutes - almost certainly not an undue burden.

[–] drdaeman 1 day ago
> If your transhumanist religion compels you to share PII with your machines in a way which breaks the law, then there's likely an undue burden.

Some modern recording laws are not made with a machine component in mind, even if that machine is a local first-party system and does not actually store anything long-term or propagate information any further. A cyborg-identifying person with a wearable speech processor may rightfully argue such laws are unfairly preventing their functioning, as they’re lacking an important distinction.

[–] eesmith 1 day ago
Right, but we're talking EEOC law.

The Civil Rights Act which created the EEOC does not require or permit an employer to break the law to accommodate a request, even if it is reasonable and with no burden.

Instead, the law must be challenged directly.