Religious intolerance or just societal prudence?
Personally, while I get that Muslims want to be able to worship as they please, everyone else has the right to know whom they are dealing with at any given time - especially given the fact that the majority of violence being perpetrated throughout the world stems from the "religion of peace". If you want to go out in public and deal with the public, you don't get to dictate to others how that transaction is going to take place.
As to the specific law, the garments in question conceal identities and could conceal weapons as well. Again, given the damning verses in the Koran and the Hadiths, the Danes are just being prudent, this after _im_prudently admitting them into their country to begin with.
They expect the host contry to accept and adopt their views.
I can't find the quote now but I read a comment supposedly from an Islamic scholar that stated " purpose of immigration was to eventually occupy and control the host country by any means." I may have the exact wording wrong, but that is the general idea.
Look at the no-go zones in Paris and other large cities of the EU. The dissolution of the nation state within the EU is advancing to its logical end unless and until the constituent states wakeup and smell the roses.
Sharia law violates a number of principles of American secular law, and therefore can't be given the chance of enforcement under the guise of "religious freedom." It mystifies me that so many feminists avoid criticism of Islam, since it represses the natural rights of women.
I do think banning certain types of clothing may be an extreme response, but hiding one's identity has to be denied in certain circumstances. The face must be portrayed openly on a driver's license, as one example, since it is a recognized form of identification. There may come a time when other biometric technology allows immediate recognition of retinal patterns (e.g.) as an alternate form of identity confirmation, but facial recognition technology seems to be placing even more emphasis on a picture.
And naturally born citizens have a right, in my opinion, to try to defend their culture.
However, attempting to ban certain articles of clothing is absurd. Shall children no longer be able to wear masks for Halloween? Shall a sexy young lady not be able to wear a catwomen costume to a party? and so on.
To attempt to apply such restrictions is impossible to do justly.
You bring up a good point with respect to the clothing, but those are specific events and the expectation is a charade of sorts where everyone participates of their own free will. The wearing of restrictive religious clothing is much more than that and demands compliance of everyone else - contrary to their own free will. That is why I draw a line.
"Nothing covering any part of a persons face." No way. Doesn't pass any reasonable test of a just law.
The other part I would argue is that it is not the government's responsibility to protect every religious observance. Properly, the role of government is to stay out of it as much as possible, but as they have passed non-discrimination laws, they've stepped in a cowpie from their own bull.
I would also point out that no other religion attempts to hide the identity of its followers who wear religious apparel. Thus it can also be ruled that because of the specific nature of the religious practice and the fact that it interferes with everyone else's right to know whom they are doing business with, that government can demonstrate a reasonable cause for the restriction. I vacillate on the use of the case because I agree it is a grey area, but a similar Supreme Court case may be referenced here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1989/88-1213
And you still haven't stated in clear, enforceable terms what your law or restriction would be.
All true. The key is in identification of the customer and for internet-based transaction that happens via their credit card. In the case that any fraud is alleged or payment withheld, their accounts may be subject to scrutiny. I get the argument you are trying to make regarding anonymity, but again, in those cases the pseudo-anonymity is accepted by sellers of their own free will - not as a side-effect of a governmentally-imposed mandate. It is also wholly irrelevant to the case of the customer in person.
"And the vast majority of transactions occur in a retail setting between an employee and the customer, rather than a business owner. "
Again: true, but irrelevant. The employee is an agent of the employer and the employer is the one who is on the hook to obey the law. The key is in whether you believe that parties to a transaction have the right of positive identification of the business partner. I happen to believe that to be the case. Maybe you don't.
I'm not a lawyer, but in simple terms it would simply say this:
"Any citizen having business with a government official or government service is subject to verification of identity not limited to but at a minimum of facial recognition. No exceptions to this policy - including religious exemptions - will be granted. Any citizen having business with another private entity may be requested to disclose their identity - again not limited to but at a minimum of facial recognition - or the refusing party may be declined service."
One of the primary places this comes up is on drivers' licenses, where photographs of the individual are used not only in the issuance of identification but also in the enforcement of the law.
Most interactions with government officials already require some sort of identity verification, usually a driver's license.
And banks demand that people show their faces and heads so it could be possible.
I like the simple part at the end where no one would be forced to show their face, or take off their hat or mask or costume or whatever, but solely that a person could be refused service.
I do agree that the most possible leeway should be granted for the expression of religious belief. There are always going to be grey-area cases and this one could certainly qualify. I think the test set forth in Smith (above) is well-designed.
Now they claim to have greater rights than the existing citizens of the host country. They have no respect for their hosts, or for the culture of their hosts, or for the contract they consented to in order to immigrate.
They claimed to be immigrating in fear of their lives in the country of their birth.
They should consider whether their religious dress is more important than their lives.
If it is, then return to the country they came from.
If they choose to remain in the host country, they must obey the laws of that country or be correctly treated as criminals.
The host country should have repatriation to the country they came from as one remedy for those who violate the law and refuse to assimilate as they consented to do in order to immigrate.