"Bull. Everyone else who opted out was allowed to, yet this one student objected for religious reasons and is discriminated against by the school district"
From the article: "According to Hernandez, many other students have refused to wear the ID cards, but none of them have been punished to the extent that she is, prompting claims of religious persecution."
It's an uncorroborated accusation by the party suing the school. The article says that parents and students complained, but no mention of anyone else opting out, especially no mention of them staying at the school.
" If you disagree then tell me, if the students were forced to wear a cross..."
Nope, stop there. It's either a christian school, so they wouldn't even be there if they objected to it, or the school is already violating the First Amendment by promoting a religion (I know it specifies Congress, but it should apply to every level of government). RFID is in no way related to religion, so your analogy, like most, is stupid.
Thank you for starting with the insult and accusation of trolling; it makes it clear you have no good argument.
This is indeed a constitutional issue, but you admit they made it about religion. This is why I couldn't care less about this family's specific situation. They've chosen a ridiculous argument because they know bias will be on their side in a Texas courtroom. If they had asserted a right to privacy and freedom as the reason, my opinion would be much different.
YES, I AM SPECIFICALLY FOCUSING ON THE USE OF RELIGION AS AN EXCUSE.
Also, don't assume I'm an atheist just because I despise religion. While I myself have found no reason to have a belief in a higher power, I have not ruled it's non-existence an absolute. I also have no beef with personal faith (personal being the key word), but religion's only purpose is to convert more sheep to the flock, and to gain enough power to force its beliefs on those who are not a part of it.
I refuse to support this girl and her family simply because they're making an issue of "religious freedom".
The constitution should only protect your right to belong to your faith of choice, and to practice it in private, alone or with people who share that faith. It should not allow you to avoid doing something that everyone else is required to do in a public setting.
The only thing that accomplishes is discriminating against people who don't need to believe in myth to go through their lives.
If someone is getting something for free, the cartels hate it.
Doesn't matter if that person spends 99% of their income on their stuff. If they get one thing without paying, they are "pirate scum" who deserve to be strung up in the middle of town, next to their families and friends, and stoned to death by rich executives in suits.
"If the cops don't like this, maybe they should consider the example they set when they flip the light bar on momentarily to blow through traffic signals."
Sounds as much of an urban legend as flashing your high-beams works. I've never seen nor heard of anyone actually doing that, and it smacks of anti-cop bias, as does the whole concept of ticket-dodging.
The implementation may be bad (for-profit companies running the cameras), but the idea of punishing people for creating safety hazards is sound.
Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
Seems like some standard anti-government screed. If corporations can't be held accountable by the government, they won't be held accountable, period. You think the average consumer would keep them in line? Let me laugh incredibly hard.