Hacker News

points by ranger_danger 1 day ago | 0 comments

> There's no requirement for your beliefs to be consistent

I would bet money a judge would argue that inconsistent/arbitrary beliefs are in fact not "sincerely held" beliefs as defined under Title VII.

Also, SCOTUS made a ruling in 2023 that a business is allowed to take "undue hardship" into consideration for the company as a whole, meaning they can still fire (or not hire) you if your beliefs would be detrimental to the success of the business.

[–] cwnyth 1 day ago

The fact that all this stuff is easily accessible online and yet some people think they can just out-logic the law is mind-boggling to me. Oh, you never studied law in your life but you're criticizing a 60-year old law that has been hashed out over and over again? Dunning-Kruger strikes again.

[–] ranger_danger 1 day ago

Agreed... I feel like this is many people in general though (and esp. online forums/social media where people like to act smart); always with the armchair experts confidently stating uneducated guesses as dogma.

And the Dunning-Kruger effect also applies to "smart" people. You don't stop when you're estimating your ability correctly; as you learn more, you gain more awareness of your ignorance and continue being conservative with your self-estimates.