Muslim women should be able to wear hijabs/headscarves wherever and whenever they want

We now have reached the conclusion of this debate. I commend Pro for trying hard, I genuinely see an effort put into their arguments and sincere integrity in the way they carry themselves. Nonetheless, I find flaws in the logic they use and the route by which they have reached the conclusion of the resolution being proven true.What Pro is Saying in Favor of ConIn Round 2, Pro states that "a business has the right to refuse service". This directly opposes the resolution as if a private organization, household, or business can ban someone from wearing a Hijab, it follows that on those premises at a given time, Muslim women are not able to wear the Hijab whenever and wherever they want.In Round 3, Pro follows up on this saying that he doesn't approve how the business may carry out their right but that their right is undeniable. This is again contradicting the notion that Muslim on the premises are able to wear the Hijab whenever and wherever they please.In Round 3, Pro finally concedes that if the Hijab can pose a security threat (which it undeniably can), that any Muslim woman being strip searched should be forced to remove the Hijab. This directly contradicts the notion that they are able to wear it whenever and wherever they want to do so as if they happened to wish to do it in this situation, Pro supports banning them from wearing it.In Round 3, Pro attempts to cover up the business contradiction by saying that someone can be refused service for Hijab but that the woman should be permitted to wear it. If the business, in the example Pro offered, had a policy that stated that only people purchasing coffee or some other food or beverage were permitted to stay there, then the Muslim women there would all have to remove their Hijab in order to remain in place. In addition, Pro ignores the fact that a business can dictate that its Muslim employees do not wear the Hijab as it violates uniform (something which I raised in round one and went uncontested the entire debate).The Jaiyana CaseThis has no relevance to the debate because regardless of where Jaiyana came from, if she is in a situation where snot permitted to wear the Hijab but wants to do so, Pro argues that she has some inherent ineffable privilege beyond human comprehension to wear her Hijab where and when she pleases. This is clearly not true at all. He is playing an emotional game where one's sympathy for Jaiyana somehow necessitates all Muslim women to wear the Hijab where and when they please. There is no logical progression here, it is merely a distraction from the real debate at hand.The Persecution IssueIt is not persecution to ban a headwear for all people of all races and religions. Muslim women can wear a variety of headwear, Hijab is only one of them. Regardless of this even if they were completely banned from wearing headwear of that kind, it wouldn't be persecution. Persecution is if the treatment is directed at a race or religion.My Round 2 argument was that is Muslim women are dressing similar to the non-Muslim women persecution becomes far more difficult and almost impossible to carry out within a nation. this makes being Muslim simply a non-visual philosophical choice as opposed to a fashion statement that people can overtly see and mock. That was my point.The Islamic Nations IssuePro does not seem to understand the point I am making here. I explained how many Islamic nations force women who are not Muslim to wear their clothing (and ban clothing of other religions too). This is perfectly fine in their religion and culture and, throughout history, they have even gone through periods of banning Hijabs violently and justified it. If this is acceptable treatment to non0-Muslims, according to them, then why it is unacceptable to ban the Hijab in a non-Muslim nation of any kind? It shouldn't be and for them to oppose it on grounds of "acceptance" or "tolerance" is outrageous.The Religion Validity IssueIn Round 1, I raised the point that most religions other than Islam are equally probable to it to be the true one. This means that any nations such as Vatican City, Kenya or Brazil (three different kinds of Christianity) should be totally entitled to ban Hijab wearing since it represents a false religion according to them and idolizing any deity other than the Christian God is not only a sin but a direct violation of one of the ten core commandments of Christianity. Thus, to suggest that such a nation would have no right to ban the Hijab while Islamic nations can enforce their fashion rules onto non-Muslims is absurd to the highest degree.I conclude that Muslim women should be able to wear Hijabs wherever and whenever they want.