The point is that if you let one religion claim something, then you have to let the rest of them too. In practice that means people with “closely held beliefs” get free passes, but people who make decisions based on logic and reason don’t.
So someone can claim certain clothing can be an exception for a closely held belief, but an atheist can’t have the exact same outcome because they don’t have a religion to use as a reason. I’m fine with some leniency, other than the fact that atheists don’t get any.
Pastafarianism is a closely held belief. Why shouldn’t they have the same rights as everyone else? The courts have created two classes of religions by rejecting the Pastafarian faith.
The point is that if you let one religion claim something, then you have to let the rest of them too. In practice that means people with “closely held beliefs” get free passes, but people who make decisions based on logic and reason don’t.
So someone can claim certain clothing can be an exception for a closely held belief, but an atheist can’t have the exact same outcome because they don’t have a religion to use as a reason. I’m fine with some leniency, other than the fact that atheists don’t get any.
Pastafarianism is a closely held belief. Why shouldn’t they have the same rights as everyone else? The courts have created two classes of religions by rejecting the Pastafarian faith.
Why are you asking me about something I didn’t say?