This one has two very different issues at hand...

and it's important to separate them.  A hospital in Indiana has fired eight employees for refusing to take a mandatory flu vaccine.  It isn't necessarily a shot anymore because there's a nasal version that can be inhaled rather than injected.  So fear of needles is no longer a viable objection.

One of the nurses who was fired had worked for the hospital for more than 20 years.  But she refused to get the shot and her lawyer is claiming she's entitled to do so on religious grounds.  Her personal beliefs that flu shots are bad should be recognized as falling under the Civil Rights Act of 1974, he says.

First off, the main question is, should the rights of patients or employees come first in healthcare settings?  Is it fair to expose patients to employees who may be contagious with the flu?  That's an interesting question worthy of exploration.  I don't buy into the argument that there is a realistic danger of adverse reaction to the flu vaccine.  It's statistically possible but extremely rare.  I think the rights of the patients, particularly since they are often in a weakened condition where the flu could easily kill them, should supersede the rights of employees.  Let employees move into jobs where they won't be exposed to patients if they want to refuse the flu vaccine (almost called it a shot).

The religious question is nonsensical.  If you belong to a faith that objects to vaccines on a broad basis, as Christian Scientists object to the treatments offered by most physicians, that's one thing.  But to hold a personal belief that a flu shot is bad for you isn't faith-based.  It may involve one's faith that it is bad, but that wasn't the intent of the laws that carve out protection for religion.  By that token, I could argue that I shouldn't have to take a lie detector test as a condition of employment because the stress of such a test could be bad for me.