It is very important how this is argued and handled. This is a classic case of a Muslim making the claim that she should be allowed to run willy nilly over everyone else’s rights so that she may do anything she wishes if she can link it to her superstition.
If I walk into a gas station with a pair of 45 Cal revolvers and they call the police, are they violating my rights as a person who once visited Texas and liked it? The analogy is flawless. This women, if indeed it is a woman, was denied service not for anything she believes, but because she was wearing a disguise. She can believe the ocean is pink lemon aid if she wants but she cannot be covered from head to toe and expect to receive full service from everyone, especially when wearing a disguise is, in most places, illegal.
Once again, the answer to this debate is not to create more soft totalitarianism by asking governments to regulate women’s clothing. It is to stop making exceptions for Muslims to break the laws we already have.
Remember. Every-time we ask government to regulate issues that government have no business being involved with, even though it seems like a great idea at the time, it always ends badly. Just like the ‘hate speech laws’ that everyone figured would prevent another holocaust against the Jews, and now clearly are being better utilized by Muslims working towards one at every level up to and perhaps especially at the U.N.