Wrote the wrong "church" in pervious post, corrected. But https://thesatanictemple.com/#
In 1890, the Supreme Court in Davis v. Beason expressed religion in traditional theistic terms: “[T]he term ‘religion’ has reference to one’s views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will.”
Following the expansive view of religion expressed in Seeger and Welsh, the Court in its 1972
ruling involving the Amish and compulsory school attendance suggested a shift back, to a more
exclusive definition. The majority opinion in Wisconsin v. Yoder indicated that the free-exercise
clause applied only to “a ‘religious’ belief or practice,” and “the very concept of ordered liberty
precludes allowing every person to make his own standards on matters of conduct in which
society as a whole has important interests.”
The Court in its 1981 decision Thomas v. Review Board further expressed its reluctance to protect
philosophical values. The Indiana Supreme Court had ruled that a decision by a Jehovah’s Witness
to quit his job after he was transferred to a weapons-making facility was a “personal philosophical
choice rather than a religious choice” and did not “rise to the level of a first amendment claim.” In
overturning the Indiana decision, Chief Justice Warren Burger cautiously stated, “only beliefs rooted
in religion are given special protection to the exercise of religion.” The Court found the worker’s actions
to be motivated by his religious beliefs.
So, the recent precedences YOU posted indicate that beliefs founded in religion are a valid basis for
ones actions, but simply holding a philosophical belief is not valid under the protection of religion.
You, as a non-believer of religion, would have zero basis for refusing IT services based on "moral grounds" as you proposed.