I was once stuck in line in a Subway behind two Muslim men having an argument. One of them was insisting that he couldn’t have turkey ham because eating ham was against his faith, and the other one was trying to explain that ham was forbidden because it was pork and that turkey ham was fine because it wasn’t pork. His mate just kept repeating “it’s still ham though, innit?” There were halal signs up, that wasn’t the problem.
A television episode can be an inaccurate portrayal of religious law while still portraying what real religious people actually believe. Not every religious person is smart and well-informed about all the technicalities of their religion.
All of the “well actually” when it comes to religious laws misses the reality of the situation imo. Well educated religious scholars will debate religious laws and frequently fail to achieve consensus on much. Ordinary religious practitioners will simply adopt whichever interpretation they identify with. There are no truly correct interpretations of any religion, and for any religion there are as many different interpretations of what it means as there are people interpreting it. Even in Judaism, which is really quite homogeneous as far as most religions go.
A television episode can be an inaccurate portrayal of religious law while still portraying what real religious people actually believe. Not every religious person is smart and well-informed about all the technicalities of their religion.