unfortunately religious exemption is still a thing. the jury just decided in this case that he was bullshitting because he took a bunch of other drugs that were also against his beliefs.
Is that not subject to a “reasonable accommodation” limit, though? It’s not like anyone could actually use my “King” example, and expect it to work just because they acted as if they genuinely believed it, right?
unfortunately religious exemption is still a thing. the jury just decided in this case that he was bullshitting because he took a bunch of other drugs that were also against his beliefs.
Yeah, I read it. Pardon me if I believe his “beliefs” weren’t believably beliefs.
I’m not asking you to believe him. the point is, in the bigger picture, it’s still possible for other religious people to claim discriminaiton.
Is that not subject to a “reasonable accommodation” limit, though? It’s not like anyone could actually use my “King” example, and expect it to work just because they acted as if they genuinely believed it, right?