This is what the institute said. It is not the logic the court used when tossing her case.
Religious liberty has limits. The government is merely required to make reasonable accomodations for religion; it is not required to bend over for religion. Importantly, the use of id badges/bracelets was wholly secular (i.e, no religious or antireligious purposes.)
The school offered, as a reasonable accomodation, for the girl to wear a normal id badge without any sort of rfid or other technology. There were no further accomodations the school could reasonably make without burdening everyone else: the teachers, administrators, her fellow students. Thus, requiring further accomodation for her religious beliefs was not reasonable. After all, the girl has the option of going to private school if she truly believes that a simple id badge is against her religion.
Yes, I realize that was what the institute said. My point was showing that the argument they (the girl and her supporters) were making was not about RFID but about freedom of religion.
Religious liberty has limits. The government is merely required to make reasonable accomodations for religion; it is not required to bend over for religion. Importantly, the use of id badges/bracelets was wholly secular (i.e, no religious or antireligious purposes.)
The school offered, as a reasonable accomodation, for the girl to wear a normal id badge without any sort of rfid or other technology. There were no further accomodations the school could reasonably make without burdening everyone else: the teachers, administrators, her fellow students. Thus, requiring further accomodation for her religious beliefs was not reasonable. After all, the girl has the option of going to private school if she truly believes that a simple id badge is against her religion.