This demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge as to how religion is addressed at law. It’s not about how many religions do something, validity/truth/logic of beliefs, nor whether the religion is recognized, mainstream, etc., because of separation of church and state. The question is about the sincerity of such belief. One may have a sincere belief against vaccines (even if unfounded, and in our minds, dumb). Therefore, if the vetting process finds a sincerely held belief, then reasonable accommodations may be made.
As I told the other guys earlier, read up on the process online; there’s plenty of legitimate articles out there, probably legal alerts from reputable firms, too.
For instance, there’s a large black population who are rejecting vaccination due to last wrongs. Screw those concerns? In their mind, and maybe in fact, they have reason to pause, but science also tells us not to fear and to take it for the better of all of us.
By the way, I’m not trying to “get” anyone here. I’m just saying there’s more to it than we think. Besides, @iacas, you should recall not long ago I lamented masking and wanted mandatory vaccination, to which you also cautioned me, despite, I think, understanding my point.