The courts really do not want to get into the bussiness of dictating people's religion. They explicitly do not require that a religious belief be well supported by the text, orthodoxy, or any denomination of the religion. Nor do they require that a religious belief is self consistent or unchanging through time. It is possible to argue that a belief is not sincerly held, but it is very difficult to win such an arguement. As such these legal arguemnts are almost always about what constitutes a 'reasonable accomodation'.

Perpetual employment is not a reasonable accomodation; but if you work in HR at a large company, you could probably get out of handling the firing of other employees.

In practice what this means is that if an employee says they have a strong personal conviction about something, the employer must offer reasonable accomodations if any are available, or be prepared to show that the claim was made in bad faith.

I legitimately knew a ~50 year old person, when I was a child, who believed that having your photograph taken captured part of your soul, and she would not allow her photograph to be taken.

Apparently it was a widely-held Native American religious belief: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8380/did-some-c...

You are cherry picking from the comment (and the article):

> the key thing is that another employee did get an alternate background check

It doesn't matter if it's a religious belief that you approve of or not. The point is it was possible but was not offered as an option for this person.

Nah, you're assuming I'm discussing the case in the article, when in fact I'm just talking about religious belief exemptions in general.

> Does the person not have no drivers license

It's legal to not have a driver's license, if one does not drive on public roads.