Can You Assert a Religious Objection to Using AI at Work?

​The Unitarian Universalist Association is currently developing a theological statement about the use of AI, one of many religious institutions that are no doubt doing so in the wake of Pope Leo’s encyclical – notably the first of his papacy – On Safeguarding The Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence.

Writing for Business Insider, Sarah Needleman notes that both of these currents may have influenced software engineer Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist who lives in North Carolina, to seek a religious exemption from using AI in her work (an exemption her employer subsequently granted without fanfare). On the basis of Needleman’s reporting, Maus may be the first person to raise a faith-based religious objection to AI, but she certainly won’t be the last. This means that, from the standpoint of the First Amendment and the free exercise of religion, we should consider this a developing story.

In the years to come, numerous lawsuits about various aspects of AI will be filed and heard in the courts. And that’s as it should be in any free society, especially given that AI potentially augurs the most significant social change in more than a century.

So we will have to see how the ever-evolving debate over the Free Exercise Clause plays out in the age of AI. The courts have historically shied away from considering or evaluating the validity of a person’s religious beliefs (or objections on that basis). Instead, the measure is sincerity, a principle that has been in place at least since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1944 Ballard decision.

In his encyclical, the pope acknowledged the need for “robust legal frameworks” to regulate AI. But the emergence of new, unorthodox religious beliefs might yet force courts to find some way to draw a reasonable line on what constitutes a sincere religious belief.

It is easy enough to see how an employer might suffer from employees who assert a religious objection to AI. What if someone asserts a religious objection to walking an upswept floor? A strict adherent of Jainism, seeking to avoid stepping on a tiny creature, might well do so and would likely prevail in court. But what if some new faith instills a religious objection to answering phones? Or to entering data? Or to smiling at customers?
​
Difficult deliberations await the courts, with the First Amendment front and center. We can only hope that the government will always “err” on the side of requiring a high standard of proof when it comes to imposing a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion.

DONATE & HELP US DEFEND YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS