If a medical treatment goes against the rooted beliefs of a person’s religion, how are companies/employers able to supersede the Federal & State’s constitution, all the while simultaneously avoiding discriminating?
As the Supreme Court has recognized, employees’ “religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit [legal/First Amendment] protection.” (Thomas v. Review Bd. Of Ind. Emp’t Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 714 (1981)); see also (Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 531 (1993) (same)). Additionally, though membership in or adherence to the tenets of religious beliefs, it is not a necessary precondition. See (Frazee v Ill. Dep’t. Of Emp’t Sec., 489 U.S. 829, 834 (1989) “Undoubtedly, membership in an organized religious denomination, especially one with a specific tenet forbidding members to work on Sunday, would simplify the problem of identifying sincerely held religious beliefs, but we reject the notion that to claim protection [for sincerely held religious beliefs], one must be responding to the commands of a particular religious organization.” See also (Office of Foreign Assets Control v. Voices in the Wilderness, 329 F. Supp. 2d 71, 81 (D.D.C. 2004) (noting that the law provides protection for “sincerely held religious beliefs,” “not just tenets of organized religion”).
In fact, the law provides protection for sincerely held religious beliefs even when some members of the same religious organization, sect, or denomination disagree with the beliefs espoused by the individual. Some individuals may have sincerely held religious beliefs which differ from those sincerely held by the United employees requesting accommodation is irrelevant to whether the employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs are entitled to protection under Title VII.
-Intrafaith differences of that kind are not uncommon among followers of a particular creed, and the judicial process is singularly ill equipped to resolve such differences and the guarantee of free exercise is not limited to beliefs which are shared by all of the members of a religious sec. Particularly in this sensitive area, it is not within the judicial function and judicial competence to inquire whether the petitioner of his fellow worker more correctly perceived the commands of their common faith. Courts are not arbiters of scriptural interpretation.-
Article from r/Libertarian: For a Free Society