This whole argument rubs me the wrong way. It requires the state to determine what a real religion is and isn't. And it removes equal protection, different people have the law applied to them in different ways depending on their religion.

Both of these seen to go against the first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

> A humanist may have strong, sincerely held beliefs, but he is not under any authority that compels those beliefs, so they aren't "religious".

The article actually links to a federal court case which ruled, indeed, that humanism is a religion [0].

It is my understanding that to suggest that strong, sincerely held beliefs are not in themselves authoritative is a rejection of humanism.

0: https://www.edweek.org/education/federal-court-finds-secular...

Employee: I need an accommodation. AI goes against my religious beliefs.

HR director, to employee's director: Does this guy use AI for anything currently? Do you need him to? If we grant this request, will it affect us negatively?

Employee's director: A couple people use AI. It's not required at all. Honestly, people don't know how to use it a lot of the time. Granting it would not change anything.

HR director, to employee's director: Okay, great. We've got 3 pending lawsuits right now and I don't think this guy would have a case anyway, but our legal bills are higher than we budgeted for. We have more important things to worry about.

HR director, to employee: Your accommodation request is granted.

Humanist organization press release: This is a landmark human rights case in American history.