I'm not interested in legislating the exact qualities of a "good person." I'm pointing out that, from a case law perspective, Google is entirely in clear to fire these people.

The categorical question of "is X a cult" doesn't impinge on whether The Fellowship of Friends is a cult, which it is.

The case you cited says nothing of the sort. It only establishes that a religious organization can be sued for fraud if it uses coercive persuasion ("brainwashing") techniques [1].

It doesn't make a statement as to what is or isn't considered a religion.

It's worth noting that the Fellowship of Friends is recognized by both the IRS and California as a tax-exempt religious organization. And, at least from my perspective, it doesn't sound all that different from Scientology, which does enjoy First Amendment protections as a religion. [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molko_v._Holy_Spirit_Ass%27n_f...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headley_v._Church_of_Scientolo...

Note I said what the Rule of Law can't do, not whether it succeeded in doing anything.

A Fortune 500 company I worked for had anti-discrimination training that said it was okay to discriminate against 45 year olds. And their harassment training said that it's not illegal for a bisexual manager to flirt with or grabass everyone because they're not being selective about it. I hope to god some later employees figured out how twisted both of those were and that, even if they are both true, you shouldn't call attention to it in ethics training, ffs.