Hacker News
points by 6gvONxR4sf7o 1 day ago | 0 comments
It's interesting to think about this expanded view of religion and how it interacts with nondiscrimination laws. The guy's beliefs (at least in the quotes in the article) seem like a good combination of well reasoned and sensible and core faith-like beliefs, so I'm glad they're protected. At the same time, I can imagine plenty of beliefs that would make me not want to hire someone. I know this one didn't go to court, but I wonder what tests courts use to draw the lines. What deeply held beliefs am I allowed to say make someone an idiot or jerk I don't want to hire, and what deeply held beliefs am I allowed to hold and want the state to protect?
[–] wildzzz 1 day ago
There is a thing called Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications where an employer could discriminate against protected classes because the job description is so specific. Like if a church wanted to hire a new pastor, the job description requires the applicant to be Christian and likely a specific denomination, and any non-christian would be disqualified from the position. BFOQs must be spelled out in the job description to make it absolutely clear that the qualifications are necessary for the job. Also age, sex, and gender can be BFOQs like if the job description is for an acting role of a specific character. Race could potentially apply to something like an acting job too but that's a lot more of a dicey subject, like it would need to be absolutely critical to the production that a character is a specific race.
[–] phainopepla2 1 day ago
> Race could potentially apply to something like an acting job too but that's a lot more of a dicey subject, like it would need to be absolutely critical to the production that a character is a specific race.

Is this true? I would think that this conflicts with first amendment rights a bit.

[–] jzemeocala 1 day ago
for a crazier example.....hooters hire it's waitress as "entertainers/actresses" now to avoid alot of their rules that would be sexual discrimination anywhere else you serve shitty food.
[–] wildzzz 1 day ago
It's race in all but name. They actually get around it by specifying everything about a person other than race, like skin color, accent or language skills.

If they need a Viet person for a role in a Vietnam War movie, they'll cast for "native or fluent Vietnamese speakers". Of course it's entirely plausible that a black guy is a fluent Vietnamese speaker but auditions are very subjective so good luck proving that the black guy played the role of NVA Soldier #1 better than the actual Vietnamese guy.

[–] cvoss 1 day ago
His beliefs are not currently protected. He filed a Title VII request, which was ultimately granted by his employer voluntarily. Because no court ruled that the employer had to grant the request, it is an open question whether Title VII protects them.

I would be shocked if, had the university declined, the courts ultimately ruled that it was protected. Congress is free to write laws protecting people against discrimination for various beliefs. But they law they have on the books now shouldn't be stretched to cover this.

It's worth understanding why sincerely held religious beliefs are such a big deal and in a different league from "strong personal convictions". It's because people who hold them generally are under and bound by two authorities: their state law and their church law (which might take many forms). If a person is in a position where they simply cannot abide both laws simultaneously, the state must yield. Otherwise the state is no protector of freedom.

A humanist may have strong, sincerely held beliefs, but he is not under any authority that compels those beliefs, so they aren't "religious". He is permitted by all his authorities to use AI. He just doesn't want to out of a private belief that it is somehow "wrong".

If your employer orders you to do something you believe is wrong, but you are not required to believe it is wrong by a higher authority, then your employment should terminate. Same as if you just didn't want to do your job, your employment would terminate. Title VII just isn't about that stuff.

[–] amanaplanacanal 1 day ago
This whole argument rubs me the wrong way. It requires the state to determine what a real religion is and isn't. And it removes equal protection, different people have the law applied to them in different ways depending on their religion.

Both of these seen to go against the first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

[–] cvoss 10 hours ago
It's an interesting bind, not at all unlike how some efforts to address racial discrimination end up being themselves racially discriminatory. So it's like, ok, is it ok sometimes or never?

I'd be fine if you argued that Title VII is unconstitutional for this reason. I like Title VII, but I see why it might be argued against on these grounds.

I get that "no religion" is a "religion" for the purposes of not discriminating based on which religion someone is. And if you want to distinguish humanism from "no religion", that's fine. But humanism doesn't bind anybody to believe anything. It's merely a descriptor of a set of beliefs. That's wholly unlike the major and minor religions of the world. If you're a humanist but are ok with AI, nobody and no thing has the authority to tell you you are wrong. Some people may have opinions to share to persuade you, but there is no authoritative answer from a person, text, tradition, or deity. That's the difference.

Courts don't like to wade into religious matters, precisely because of their deference to religious authorities, owing to the 1A. If your church declares you a "minister" be because you help lead kids' Sunday school lessons, SCOTUS is not going to debate that; they just take it as given.

But if you go to court and say, "well I'm a minister in my religion because I said so," that's not going to fly. You're free to exercise religion, not make things up and pretend like your private opinions are religiously imposed on you.

For exactly this reason, there are plenty of people from traditional religions who claim exemptions to things that I think are bad faith uses of Title VII.

[–] v0x 1 day ago
Employee: I need an accommodation. AI goes against my religious beliefs.

HR director, to employee's director: Does this guy use AI for anything currently? Do you need him to? If we grant this request, will it affect us negatively?

Employee's director: A couple people use AI. It's not required at all. Honestly, people don't know how to use it a lot of the time. Granting it would not change anything.

HR director, to employee's director: Okay, great. We've got 3 pending lawsuits right now and I don't think this guy would have a case anyway, but our legal bills are higher than we budgeted for. We have more important things to worry about.

HR director, to employee: Your accommodation request is granted.

Humanist organization press release: This is a landmark human rights case in American history.

[–] Humorist2290 1 day ago
> A humanist may have strong, sincerely held beliefs, but he is not under any authority that compels those beliefs, so they aren't "religious".

The article actually links to a federal court case which ruled, indeed, that humanism is a religion [0].

It is my understanding that to suggest that strong, sincerely held beliefs are not in themselves authoritative is a rejection of humanism.

0: https://www.edweek.org/education/federal-court-finds-secular...

[–] romanows 1 day ago
Seems the religious people have a strong, sincerely held belief that they should follow a particular religious authority, and that seems to come outside of the religious authority itself. I guess I don't really buy this line of justification any more than just saying "because religion".