“United in diversity” :3

The hijab thing is to some extend understandable beacuse of work safety. Although that only applies for jobs with machines and such. This definitely needs more clarification

According to the court, the ban is justified if the employer needs “to present a neutral image towards customers or to prevent social disputes” (emphasis added). Is that a fair justification in your opinion?
- Quite so. It implies a specific religion which is quite the opposite of a neutral image. Just like a cross necklace would be. Religion has no place in a workplace.
- Yes it is. Of course a cahsier or a car salesperson shouldn't be forced to appear "neutral" but i think political figured and anything law (judges police etc.) Should always appear as neutral as possible
- Fair enough
Wearing religious symbols may also be forbidden for some official jobs like for police or other types of officers. The reasoning being that they should act and appear neutral, as servants of the state and nothing and no one else.
- I'm not Muslim. I am balding. Can I wear a headscarf to conceal my hair loss? My scarf certainly would not be a religious symbol, but it would be indistinguishable from hijab.
  
  What if I have extensive scars, to the point that children are frightened, and everyone I meet instantly presents a look of disgust and revulsion? Can I hide my face behind a veil? Again, certainly not a religious symbol, it's an accessibility device that I have found essential for social interaction among people unaccustomed to such disfigurement. My veil could easily be confused for niqab.
  
  I am Muslim. Every time I have to conduct any official business with the government, I am reminded that my government supports the suppression of the symbols of my religion.
  
  No, there are practical considerations in many jobs that justify restrictions on certain types of clothing without regard to religion. But if the only justification for the restriction is "religious people wear that", that prohibition is unreasonable.