You say the phrase "exact strictures of the religion", as if there aren't an untold number of different ways to interpret a set of religious texts that are in many places explicitly and intentionally ambiguous.
She disagrees with the way they operate; she doesn't need to justify herself either. They were able to come to a satisfactory business agreement regardless.
I think what I'm responding to is that your circumcision comparison made it sound like you're suggesting she's somehow "less Jewish" or an outsider to Judaism, when in fact the specific thing she's disagreeing with isn't a universal part of the religion.
I don't see why this has to degrade to an argument of semantics, but here we go.
Just as if we were talking about Hokkien, we could talk about "the language" Hokkien, despite the fact that you could say "the language" and mean Chinese (which may include Hokkien) in some other context. Right now we're talking about this specific publication's circle of association. They clearly have different religious rules than Deborah, but she is still Jewish.
> I think what I'm responding to is that your circumcision comparison made it sound like you're suggesting she's somehow "less Jewish" or an outsider to Judaism
She is, in relative terms, more of an outsider to this specific publication's Judaism than somebody who would agree with their first offer (assuming they still hold the view that their first offer was preferable).