TBH I agree. Religious exemptions at large only exist for the big name religions but the arguments pushed often make claims about it being a moral/ethical precedent and its just not true. I think its a matter of PR and politics if you're able to get an exemption kind of same game as a lot of things.

We see this with people who believe it is a religious requirement to share their faith at work, even when their co-workers say they don't want to hear it.

We see this with people who say their religious belief says they don't take orders from a women, even if that woman is their boss.

If your transhumanist religion compels you to share PII with your machines in a way which breaks the law, then there's likely an undue burden.

If it means you need access to a power plug during lunch so your devices can scan your brain for 10 minutes - almost certainly not an undue burden.

Some modern recording laws are not made with a machine component in mind, even if that machine is a local first-party system and does not actually store anything long-term or propagate information any further. A cyborg-identifying person with a wearable speech processor may rightfully argue such laws are unfairly preventing their functioning, as they’re lacking an important distinction.

The Civil Rights Act which created the EEOC does not require or permit an employer to break the law to accommodate a request, even if it is reasonable and with no burden.

Instead, the law must be challenged directly.