Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
Lerc | on: Kentucky man becomes the first humanist granted religious exemption from AI
I agree with the principle that if it meaningfully impinges on your core ideals that you shouldn't be required to do that.

On the other hand, it seems like this particular ideal is being supported because of an underlying public sentiment. Not because the ideal itself is held.

I think if you are going to fully support variances in beliefs like this then it should be done on an equal standing.

That includes principles about proprietary software, abusive software, the belief that information cannot have ownership, advertising is inherently immorral.

There are a lot more principles, it is clear that some people have these at a level where they consider it a core part of their being,

Why shouldn't they also be supported. Should companies be required to offer open source solutions for employees in the same manner as this case is suggesting for non-AI?

Lerc | parent
While I don't want to complain about the downvotes, it does present me with some confusion. What part of my post is being disagreed with here?

Do people disagree that beliefs should be accommodated? Do they disagree that they should be treated equally? I didn't say where to draw the line, I just observed that one existed.