The notion of “reasonable accommodation” is not foreign or new to US law — we have the same kind of thing for hiring people who are handicapped. You have to make reasonable accommodations for people to do the job, but no one is arguing that a quadriplegic is entitled to a job unloading mail trucks. It seems to me the same principle can apply in religious accommodation.

You shouldn’t be able to insist that you deserve a paycheck even though you’re not doing your job because your religion prohibits you from doing your job. But the government should not generally have the ability to discard or ignore people’s religious beliefs because those beliefs are mildly inconvenient or weird. Otherwise, the second amendment is pretty much pointless.

That’s a grey area there and subject to a lot of creepage. People need to accomodate other people’s religious beliefs to the extent that they are not directly harmful to others and do not interfere with one’s responsibilities. Hudok’s responsibilities include helping insure the safety of the school and enforcing school rules — if he is uncomfortable with those, he does not need to teach. Likewise, pharmacists who are afraid they will be asked to prescribe medication that violates their religious rules should find another career.

But if it harms none, the state should accommodate all sorts of weirdness because it is not the state’s job to decide what in religion is nutty and what’s not.