"Minnesota Appeals Court Decides 4 Cases on Religious Exemptions from Vaccine Mandates"

A post by Prof. Howard Friedman (Religion Clause), which he kindly allowed me to pass along:

Yesterday, the Minnesota Court of Appeals decided four separate appeals from decisions of Unemployment Law Judges who denied unemployment benefits because an applicant refused on religious grounds to comply with an employer's Covid vaccine mandate. Goede v. Astra Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, (MN App., June 12, 2023), was the only one of the four cases published as a precedential decision. The court affirmed the ULJ's denial of benefits even though the state Department of Employment and Economic Development urged its reversal.  The court said in part:

The ULJ found that "Goede does not have a sincerely held religious belief that prevents her from receiving a COVID-19 vaccine." The ULJ explained: "Goede's testimony, when viewed as a whole, shows by a preponderance of the evidence that Goede's concern is about some vaccines, and that she is declining to take them because she does not trust them, not because of a religious belief." The ULJ further stated that "[w]hen looking at the totality of the circumstances, Goede's belief that COVID-19 vaccines are not okay to put in her body is a personal belief not rooted in religion."

In Daniel v. Honeywell International, Inc., (MN App., June 12, 2023), the appellate court again upheld a denial of benefits, this time to a former employee who refused both the Covid vaccine and refused to comply with the employer's religious accommodation.  The court said in part:

Relator asserts that Honeywell's COVID-19 policy requiring that he get weekly COVID-19 tests and submit the results "required [him] to defy [his] religious faith." He asserts that he was upholding his religious faith "by practicing [his] God given right of 'control over [his] medical' by not subjecting Jesus Christ's temple to forcefully coerced medical treatments such as weekly PCR and/or rapid antigen test requirements."…

The ULJ found that relator lacked credibility because he provided inconsistent testimony and he struggled to explain his religious beliefs.

The court reversed the ULJ's denial of benefits in two other cases. In Benish v. Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC, (MN App., June 12, 2023) the court said in part:

The ULJ found that Benish made a "personal choice" to refuse the vaccine, but Benish did not testify to any personal reasons for refusing the vaccine. Instead, he consistently testified that his reason for refusing it was religious. The ULJ also placed improper weight on inconsistencies in Benish's religious beliefs and on the fact that the Pope had encouraged vaccination in determining that Benish's beliefs were not sincerely held….

… [W]e conclude that the ULJ's finding—that Benish did not have a sincerely held religious belief that precluded him from getting a COVID-19 vaccine—is unsupported by substantial evidence and must be reversed.

In Millington v. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, (MN App., June 12, 2023), the court reversed the ULJ's denial of benefits, saying in part:

Millington clearly and consistently testified regarding her religious reasons for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine. Millington's testimony concerning personal reasons for refusing the vaccine— that she already had COVID-19 and believed she did not need the vaccine and that she had concerns about the safety of the vaccine—are not sufficient to constitute substantial evidence.

In addition, although we generally defer to a ULJ's credibility findings, the ULJ's credibility finding in this case was based on at least two erroneous considerations. First, the ULJ erred by relying on the absence of direction from a religious leader to support a finding that Millington did not have a sincerely held religious belief…. Second, the ULJ failed to explain how Millington's use of over-the-counter medications or alcohol is pertinent to her objection to the COVID-19 vaccine based on its relationship to fetal cell lines. Consequently, the ULJ's credibility determination is not entitled to the same deference typically owed by an appellate court.

Comments

[Rossami]

So, contrary to the many breathless claims by commenters here during the covid panic, courts are quite able to sort sincerely-held beliefs from insincere claims.

I am disappointed that the process takes so long but quite pleased with the results.

[apedad]

And on exactly what legal authority, basis, or reference are courts able to sort between sincerely-held beliefs from insincere claims?

[Randal]

Are you serious?

Legal authority: US and State constitutions, and enabling statutes
Basis: Evidence (and the preponderance thereof)
Reference: Testimony and precedent

[apedad]

Exactly which legal criteria did the court determine, ". . . that Benish did not have a sincerely held religious belief that precluded him from getting a COVID-19 vaccine. . . ?"

Do I have to attend some formal religious service so many times per year?
Or do I have to get the Big Kahuna's blessing?
Or eat/not eat some kind of animal during the year?
Or maybe God told me directly!
Or do I have to wear a dress, drink wine, and kiss other men to prove that my belief is sincere?
I do like some of the hats though.

[jb]

ReaderY does a great job of outlining the general principles below.

As a baseline, it seems pretty easy to require that:

1) You can describe a religious belief and point to some evidence or doctrine that supports it, and
2) That you can demonstrate that you're consistent in following this belief (e.g., if you say that the belief is that your body can't be penetrated by needles but you just got your ears pierced and have no problems accepting other shots you are probably using this so-called belief as a pretext)

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why can't some just assert it and it be taken uncritically and at face value like we must do with gender identity?

[apedad]

HOLY MOLY BATMAN!!!!

I wholeheartedly, absolutely, completely, and unbashedly agree with BCD!!!!!

[Randal]

Good, because it's essentially the same. If you go to the doctor and ask for gender reassignment, they'll make a very similar judgement call about your sincerity. If you're just a dude who would rather've been a woman, you don't get the surgery, just like if you're a Christian who thinks the COVID vaccine is unsafe, you won't get the exception.

Good liars will get away with more bullshit, but what else is new.

[apedad]

You calling me a liar if I said God told me to do something?!?

Because if so, then there's several billion people who would like to talk to you.

[EscherEnigma]

Point me to a prophet and I'll point to several billion people who think they're a liar.

Not sure why you think you deserve special treatment.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lol no they won't. Their instrument is very simple. Have you had two symptoms in the past six months.

If you say yes, then guess what you get? A gender dysphoria diagnosis. No doctor is evaluating whether or not the person truthfully answered yes to having experienced two symptoms.

[Randal]

That's what I said. Good liars get away with more bullshit.

But the symptoms they look for aren't that easy to fake. Nor, as the above cases show, are sincere religious beliefs.

[AtR]

If you can change your gender, why can't you change your religious beliefs over time ... or each second ... ?

[Randal]

You can. You just have to convince a judge that you're serious.

[AtR]

Doesn't apply to gender ...

[Randal]

For gender, you have to convince a doctor that you're serious.

[Sequel]

I recall reading a very cogent summary of RFRA laws by Eugene Volokh a few years ago in which he stated that courts were not allowed to examine the basis, hence the sincerity, of a claim of belief.

Since these cases involve appellate state courts, I'm wondering whether we can expect to see appeals to the state Supreme Court in which these states' glimpses into religious sincerity are consistent with both state and federal constitutional law.

[Randal]

Basis is not the same as sincerity, so: abort, retry, fail?

[KenveeB]

"I recall reading a very cogent summary of RFRA laws by Eugene Volokh a few years ago in which he stated that courts were not allowed to examine the basis, hence the sincerity, of a claim of belief."

Sincerity is not the same thing as the basis. Examining the basis of the claim would be saying "Employee is claiming they can't get the shot as a Jew, but Jewish law doesn't prohibit it." People can have different interpretations of religious texts and tenets even within the same congregation, so that isn't allowed.

But the sincerity of it is different. That's seeing how consistently someone is following what they claim is their religious belief and how what they're claiming matches up with the exemption they're asking for. "As part of my Christian faith, I cannot accept any vaccine" may get rejected as insincere if you freely take other vaccines and just object to one you don't like. But "As part of my Christian faith, I cannot accept any vaccine that uses stem cells" could support rejecting just one vaccine and taking others if that's the only one that involves stem cells.

[Rossami]

The same legal authority and basis that allows courts to sort anything with a mens rea requirement. It’s really not that hard. (Or more precisely, it is hard but it’s a hard thing that courts are very experienced at doing and that they generally do quite well.)

By the way, apedad, did you bother to read the article or any of the cases it discusses? The legal basis for determining sincerity vs insincerity is laid out in detail through the citations.

[Patrick Henry, the 2nd]

Yes it's not hard, but you have it backwards. They have no authority to question religious beliefs, especially when the state is violating their rights.

[Dave_A]

The fact that a large majority of 'religious exemption' requests are outright lies (claims of aborted-fetal-byproducts in the vaccine, DNA alteration, and so on) would be a good place to start...

The problem still remains that *religious exemptions* to generally applicable laws are fundamentally wrong -as noted by Antonin Scalia in Employment Division v Smith.

Permitting such things either requires the government to blindly accept even the most preposterous religious-exemption claims (eg, that of the idiot claiming getting tested for COVID violates his religion, above) OR to become arbiters of what a given religion does or does not believe.

[Patrick Henry, the 2nd]

No you don't get to question them. Sorry.

[Patrick Henry, the 2nd]

That the state can force you to do whatever you want, your rights be damned.

[MaddogEngineer]

Agree. This ruling is an example of how you go about that (discerning whether a belief is sincerely held, or a pretext, based on related beliefs and prior behavior).

[Martinned]

Indeed. Now let's hope they survive any further appeals.

[Patrick Henry, the 2nd]

Let's hope not, for freedoms sake.

[Patrick Henry, the 2nd]

No it's how you fail to do your job as a court. They are supposed to protect rights, not violate them.

[Patrick Henry, the 2nd]

No they aren't, because the court failed here. They should've overturned the ULJ because they violated religious and body rights.

[ReaderY]

In general, I don’t think a belief on the lines of “my religion says I have the right to choose to do whatever I want and don’t have to listen to the state” supports free-exercise accommodation.

Free exercise accommodations need to be limited to situations where the religion – not you personally but a religion posited as external and objective – compels you to do something contrary to the state’s requirements. If your religion says “do what you want,” it leaves you free to do want what the state wants. That means the the state rule doesn’t interfere with it. Unless the religion is imposing a mandate, acting compulsively, there is no conflict with the state.

This does not mean that, as Professor Blackman has argued, adherents of more liberal and permissive religions are never entitled to make religion claims over matters of behavior. It will not do to say “well your religion is generally permissive, it doesn’t have lots of rules, so you’re not entitled to regard this as a rule either.” Whether something is a rule or not has to be determined on a case by case basis.

That said, I’ve argued that the existence of a rule has to be determined by evidence, and this generally means that there has to be some evidence that the principle being applied (not necessarily the application itself) preceded the particular incident being complained about and wasn’t just made up because the complainant didn’t want to do something. The requirement that a plaintiff establish the existence of the belief by evidence tends to favor organized and established religions, and also tends to favor ones with definite and publicized rules. But less organized and less rule-based religions aren’t incapable of supplying this evidence, and when they can, it counts.

I understand many conspirators and commentators think of religion as something people simply make up, as individuals, and probably regard any concept of its having an objective character as a fiction, legal or otherwise. But like the objective existence of a corporation independent of its stakeholders, legal fiction or not, the concept of the objective existence of a religion independent of its adherents is essential to a fair application of free exercise.

Care and balance, a great deal of both, is needed to avoid conflicts between religion and state and avoid the wholesale suppression of religon, without allowing people to get out of their obligations by simply making things up as they go along.

[EscherEnigma]

I mean, if we're going to talk about "objectivity" in the breath as "compels", I think it's not unfair to point out that a person's co-adherents suffer no such compulsion, calling into question if it's a compulsion or a choice.

[ReaderY]

An orthodox adherent of a conventional religion can pull out an established position of the religion, even if the individual encounters the situation for the first time, and enjoy a presumption that people who generally adhere to a religion will probably be sincere about adhering on this thing too.

The non-orthodox person has a harder time, but not an impossible one. For something like vaccines, the person could for example show they have avoided vaccines with some consistency in the past.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What's weird is that it's typically the same people who are skeptical of your claims of faith are just as unskeptical of the assertion there are now 50+ genders and you are genuinely and without question whatever gender you assert to be.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I should be able to refuse any medical treatment on any grounds I wish.

Others should be to associate or disassociate with me on any grounds they wish.

The moment we let a bunch of retards interfere with the rights is what led to this sort of dystopia nightmare where some people are forced to do things while other favored groups aren't. Or some people are forced to associate with politically favored groups against their wills.

[Reallynotbob]

Many might agree with you, but I think your argument proves too much. "Others should be [free] to associate or disassociate with me on any ground they wish" cognizes some pretty pernicious behaviors. It would justify redlining, religious tests for employment, and bribery, to name a few.

Sorry, but there are very few absolute principles that can fly in an ordered society like America (even the nostalgic version some people pine for).

[Krychek_2]

Not only that, but individual conduct has the habit of spilling over and impacting other people. If you're living by yourself on an island, sure, you can do whatever you want.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Can you describe how you partition individual conduct that impacts others that should be regulated or compelled as opposed to conduct that impacts others that shouldn't be regulated or compelled?

Obviously most people agree with on some fundamentals like your bodily and property rights. Although we are starting to see some of these bedrock principles get evaporated in court, like you no longer have a right to bodily privacy, and your speech can be compelled to serve the emotions of a politically favored class, you no longer have parental rights in many districts with regards to medical treatment or educational decisions foe your children.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Many of those don't sound that bad.

Of the data say lending in certain zip codes is a loser, then I should be able to avoid lending in those zip codes. Even when those are a majority of a particular race or ethnicity.

If I don't want to hire immoral people, as I define it, I should be free not to.

Amd bribery happens no matter the law. We just call it lobbying and sit back and watch the political families build generational wealth without end.

[apedad]

You ARE able to refuse any medical treatment on any grounds you wish.

No one is forcing you to do anything.

[Bored Lawyer]

Now deal with the facts of these cases. Someone refuses vaccination. He or she also works at a job that requires contact with multiple people, either co-employees or the public (or both). Can the employer fire him or her? Or is that part of "Others should be to associate or disassociate with me on any grounds they wish?"

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Where are we at on what the COVID vaccines do and do not do?

Are they back to making you immune and can't catch and spread COVID or are they still mere therapeutics that reduce your own risk of severe hospitalization?

[Yes Way, Ted]

Or are they poison?

Fact is, I get to decide, and coercion to put something that I don't want in my body, whether that coercion is initiated by the state or an employer at the behest of the state, is immoral.

[Bruce Hayden]

The vaccines, early on, would probably reduce the severity of the virus, and when they were routinely venting people, that could be the difference between life and death (the vented being much more likely to die, regardless of severity). But the benefits rapidly diminished, and likely turned negative, even as to hospitalizations, by the time that Omicron pushed out Delta at the end of 2021. And that doesn’t include the side effects of artificial, barely tested, artificial mRNA delivered in an even less well tested capsid. As the boosters built up, the side effects built up faster, and efficacy declined, as the IgG1 and IgG3 antibodies generated were converted to IgG4 antibodies.

Keep in mind that these were, for the most part, employment mandates to be vaccinated by vaccines that were only available through Experimental Use Authorizations (EAUs) that mandated full disclosure of risks AND completely voluntary consent. So, yes, the shots were voluntary – if you wanted to quit your job.

[Tom for equal rights]

Bruce - No question that the vax did provide benefit for a small subset of the population - ie the elderly and those with other health issues. Though not much benefit (very small benefit) for the otherwise healthy and virtually zero benefit for the young.

The vaxes were initially given under the experimental use authorization, though that was only in the early stages, and by March or april 2021 (?) , they were no longer under the Eau's rules.

[Randal]

The reason to vaccinate the healthy and the young was never to protect the healthy and the young.

[Tom for equal rights]

Randal -
Tell us again the purpose of vaccinating the young and healthy.

Especially in light of the fact that is was publicly known by mid summer of 2021 that the vax did little or nothing to reduce / slow the spread,

Also known at the development stage of the vax, that the vax mechanism to attack the intruding virus wouldnt kick in for 24-48 hours, thus rendering the ability to stop the spread weak. Fauci was aware of this deficiency by Nov 2020.

[Randal]

Now you've just descended into conspiracy theories. By "publicly known" you mean "in anti-vax cults," kind of like how it was "publicly known" that ivermectin was a wonderfully effective covid treatment.

[Tom for equal rights]

Publicly known as in the raw data reported by the CDC

[MaddogEngineer]

Sure, I'll stipulate to all that. Also has nothing to do with refusing because of some sincerely held religious belief. Like others have said, opinions about "effectiveness" or "risk" are not a religious beliefs.

[jb]

So it sounds like you think that the court decisions denying benefits were correct, since an employer shouldn't be forced to keep on an employee that doesn't adhere to their vaccination policies?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Correct. If a company wants to require a COVID vaccine and you don't want it, go find another job.

[Yes Way, Ted]

Correct. If a company wants to require you to blow the boss, and you don't want to, go find another job.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Right, I get for people like you that generally means several promotions. But for people like me with self respect and a strong sense of scientifically validated disgust for degeneracy, I would find another job.

[Bruce Hayden]

Except that in many cases, the employer mandates were in response to government mandates. Hell yes, that was by government action, but again, the business could resist, lose their state or government business, and probably go bankrupt, but it was again voluntary.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I should be able to refuse any medical treatment on any grounds I wish.

Even if that is true, it doesn't excuse people from sustaining the consequences of their conduct. For example, the low-life with tuberculosis is not entitled to take public transportation to a casino. She isn't even allowed to avoid quarantine. If she refuses treatment, she should spend the remainder of her pathetic life in a monitored room.

Similarly, termination of employment, denial of service, or ineligibility for a benefit are consequences society is entitled to impose on someone whose stupidity, delusion, or belligerence generates a threat to others.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What if most people with TB are black, gay, or a tranny? Like with AIDS.

Then it's disparate impact and the rule is de facto racist and unconstitutional.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What if most people with TB are black, gay, or a tranny? Like with AIDS.

Does anyone wish to try to argue that the Volokh Conspiracy isn't a bigotry-saturated blog, or that the right-wing law professors who operated this white, male, conservative do not cultivate bigots as a target audience?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What do the datat say?

[EscherEnigma]

As a side note, this is very much a case where I think the state being greedy was the wrong move.

Which is to say, I am 100% on-board with firing people based on non-medically necessary vaccine exemptions. Religious exemptions should not require other people shoulder heath risks on your behalf.

But this isn't about that, it's about unemployment. And frankly, employers pulling shenanigans to try to avoid letting someone getting unemployment is, has been, and most likely always will be, a dick move. So I don't care if them refusing to get vaccinated was technically "for cause" or not, they're unemployed now, let them collect while they're looking for a new job.

Which is to say, these people shouldn't have needed a religious exemption in the first place, they should have just gotten the damn unemployment.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That might be a reasonable point. It ignores, however, the belligerent, antisocial ignorance exhibited by many people who opposed vaccinations (and other safety measures). If society was being greedy, it was in response to plenty of selfish, boorish conduct.

[EscherEnigma]

It ignores, however, [...]

Yes. Yes it does.

Treat others how you want to be treated, even if they don't return the kindness.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I would not expect my selfish, antisocial, delusional, selfish, reckless, dangerous conduct to be rewarded.

[Tom for equal rights]

I have to concur that employer fighting against the unemployment benefits is a pure prick move, especially since is was pretty well known by the time these terminations occurred that the vax very ineffective after a very short period. Except for the elderly and those with health issues, the vax was of little benefit other than to calm the mental fear of covid.

[Life of Brian]

And frankly, employers pulling shenanigans to try to avoid letting someone getting unemployment is, has been, and most likely always will be, a dick move.

I agree they overdo it sometimes. But in every state I'm aware of, a company's unemployment insurance "premium" (generally a contribution rate based on gross payroll) is based in no small part on the history of claims from its employees against the company's contribution history. So if they don't ride herd on abusive claimants, it ends up coming out of the company's pocket eventually.

[EscherEnigma]

So if they don’t ride herd on abusive claimants, it ends up coming out of the company’s pocket eventually.

Yes, that the current set-up includes perverse incentives is part of the problem.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Should employers strive to avoid hiring antisocial, disaffected, awkward misfits likely to say and do boorish, tone-deaf, ignorant, delusional things?

[Tom for equal rights]

That explains why you are unemployable

[EscherEnigma]

Um, yes?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Who is going to run the IT desk? And are there foreseeable problems if Republicans and conservatives are unemployable in modern America?

[Life of Brian]

Yes, that the current set-up includes perverse incentives is part of the problem.

What you call a "perverse incentive" is, at bottom, trying to ensure that people don't just, e.g., voluntarily walk away from jobs and then demand unemployment payments (somewhat along the lines of the parent-murderer begging for mercy because he was now an orphan). That sort of oversight is necessary to prevent the system from being overrun with fraud and not being available for those that actually need it because they were involuntarily terminated for reasons outside their control. And allocating that gatekeeping function to the party most directly affected by systemic abuses is the most efficient way to reach as optimum an outcome as possible -- not perfect, but not nearly as oppressive overall as noisy corner cases might lead you to believe.

What would you propose in its place?

[EscherEnigma]

What would you propose in its place?

Your idea is that you'll have people who work the bare minimum in order to qualify for unemployment, who then quit and collect, then continue the cycle?

Yeah, that's not something I'm concerned with. To the degree it's a problem at all, it's self-correcting as the scammer makes themselves unemployable.

[Life of Brian]

Your idea is that you’ll have people who work the bare minimum in order to qualify for unemployment, who then quit and collect, then continue the cycle?

It was an example -- that was the "e.g." part -- and something I've personally seen happen. Guessing you've never been an employer of any size.

There are plenty of other avenues for fraudulent claims. The bottom line is, again, that employers having skin in the game tends to curb far more of those abuses than simply leaving the decision making process to bureaucratic drones.

Again, what would you propose in its place?

[EscherEnigma]

I don't doubt it happens, I doubt it happens enough to incentivize employers to pull the stupid shit they're known for.

And you're right, i didn't suggest an alternative policy to handle a problem I don't think is a significant problem, because my alternative is nothing. That "requirement" should just be struck.

There are plenty of other avenues for fraudulent claims.

... you expect me to address specific concerns that you haven't raised, under a vague umbrella of "other avenues"?

Sorry, but no. Give me a specific concern and I'll consider whether I think it's something worth fretting over. But I'm really not invested enough in your esteem of me or this topic to do serious research into unemployment fraud just so I can waste my time coming up with policy prescriptions that will never even be seriously considered by anyone capable of implementing them. Catch me on a topic that I care more about and I may, but this topic? Not that important to me.

[Life of Brian]

This has been a really weird exchange.

It started with you bitching about the current system under which employers can and do oppose unemployment applications.

I then explained why they need to be able to do that, and asked (twice) how you would structure the system differently.

You now say you'd do nothing differently, because you don't think it's a significant problem.

So I guess you were just bitching to hear yourself bitch. My bad for taking it seriously. Cheers.

[Randal]

I think he was saying he would change the system by taking employers out of the equation.

You pointed out a potential flaw with that, and he was unimpressed. He then declined your invitation to propose additional mitigations, since he doesn't find them to be necessary.

[Dave_A]

The inherent problem with religious exemptions is that they either (A) grant the power to the state to declare what any given religion does or does not believe, OR (B) grant claims of religious belief unquestioning acceptance – and thus grant religious believers general immunity from any law they wish to disobey.

Neither of these are desirable. We neither want the government to be the arbiter of what religions believe, nor do we want people claiming a right to (absurd example for emphasis) drive 100mph in a 25 on Sunday ‘because my religion requires me to be on time for services’….

This is why *Employment Division v Smith* was correctly decided, and there should be NO religious exemptions from generally applicable laws.

Government should not be allowed to explicitly (or pretextually) target religious believers for disfavored treatment (eg, excluding religious organizations from reciept of a general public benefit (Blane Amendments)... Or requiring an action specifically designed to exclude religious practitioners (absurd example: You must eat bacon to be eligible for employment by our police department).

BUT

Religious believers should not be able to raise ‘but my religion’ when told that they have to follow a religiously neutral law (say, a speed limit, business regulation or vaccine mandate).

[ReaderY]

I think one potential answer to the Jewish plaintiffs who claim their religion compels them to have an abortion is that if you look through the religious-law formalisms, the religion is effectively saying that if you want an abortion, you must have one, but if you don’t want an abortion, you don’t have to. And as I said in a comment above, I don’t think religious beliefs of the form “my religion compels me to do what I want” are actionable under the Free Exercise Clause, pre-Smith or post-Smith. You can jolly well want what the state wants, and then there is no conflict with your religion.

The Jewish-law origin addresses a craving, a compulsion to do something one ordinarily wouldn’t want to do, a compulsion posited as not orignating from and not really under the control of the rational, conscious mind. But the plaintiffs in these lawsuits aren’t really claiming to be suffering from irrational, unconscious, uncontrollable compulsions to have abortions. They simply want them, and are using a religious-law formalism to fit what they simply want into the appropriate religious-law category.

They don’t, for example, argue that if while pregnant they feel like speeding, or stealing, or literring, or whatever, their religion compels them to do it. Not just permits, compels. Yet this is in fact the logical implication of their argument. I think it proves too much. I think “If I want something, my religion compels me to have it” type arguments aren’t valid bases for Free Exercise accommodation. They aren’t real religious mandates independent of people’s own personal desires.

When people asset that if they want something, their religion compels them to have it, but if they don’t want something, their religion doesn’t, then I think state is entitled to limit the set of things people are legally permitted to want for Free Exercise purposes. If people simply want what the state wants, their religion isn’t offended, and any Free Exercise claim dissappears. And I think this exactly describes the situation of the Jewish if-I-want-an-abortion-my-religion-requires-me-to-have-an-abortion plaintiffs.

[Randal]

I don't know what employer would want to keep someone that terminally stupid and sociopathic on staff, whether or not they got the vaccine.

[Patrick Henry, the 2nd]

Doesn't matter, they shouldn't be fired.