Society imposes laws. Some laws work well others don't. The feedback helps refine the laws.
I'd be interested to know the aim of this law. IMO there is some fear here in the sense that we all know religions are made up and that the adherents are followers of lies that then enslave them to a way of life.
The rest of us have to tip toe around their 'belief system' so as not to offend them and even have animals killed in inhumane ways so as to not compromise those beliefs.
Yet reality is, we ought to be able to call this out as BS. We ought to be able to demand that disprovable claims and claimants are held to account the way we do in financial fraud or any other form of fraud, but we don't, we allow the term 'religion' to give it protected status.
There are many practical reasons that society should not allow a persons face to be covered. But equally there are valid reasons that they should allow a face to be covered - freezing winter winds justify the use of a balaclava for example.
This looks like half baked legislation that fears confronting the real issue - the way religion divides society and provides a narrative to justify and rationalise viewing everyone of any other 'belief system' as an apostate that will meet a fiery judgemental end.
Yet it doesn't provide a clear process for implementing and managing this legislation. What exactly is it trying to solve and is there a better way to achieve it?
I think it is reasonable to ask people to uncover their faces when entering a building. No one needs to wear a ski mask inside, for instance. If a person wearing a Halloween mask entered a bank, he would probably send all of the tellers diving for cover.
This is not the middle east. This is the western hemisphere. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. I would expect to conform to dress expectations if I visited the middle east. It is reasonable to ask middle easterners to conform to some basic expectations here. I feel that having the face uncovered within buildings is perfectly reasonable. People like and need to know with whom they are dealing.
I think this is reasonable. I am deeply committed to the First Amendment and the freedoms it enshrines, but freedom of religion, protects thoughts but not actions (child sacrifice and polygamy are illegal).
Where there is a compelling public interest that is not based in hostility to a religion, modest infringements seem reasonable. Uncovering one's face in a bank or a government office is necessary to the safety and operations of that entity. It's difficult to see why that is an inappropriate requirement.
Yes, the key is that you made your argument without reference to religion but on the grounds of public necessity.