Sorry, I didn't read ALL the posts. The first 30 or so seemed to uniformly agree that the fired person was the wrong person for the job, but many people worried about the judge's reasoning.

First: the thing we should be MOST worried about is that it's so difficult for an employer to fire individuals who turn out to be unsuitable for a job. That affects us all, every day. (And no, I don't want everyone to live in fear of a tiff with their boss, but clear and admitted evidence of non-performance...)

Second: the implications of one legal judgment don't necessarily carry over to the cases we see as logically similar. For example, while some people might see here a clear statement that a conscientious objector could no longer avoid being drafted into combat, it's unlikely that the judge in this case saw ANY similarity, or was trying to reverse older decisions of other courts relating to CO status.