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

So basically, my opponent is arguing that I have contradicted myself. This is mainly referring to my first statement in round 2. What I said was "a business has the right to refuse service." I may not support HOW the establishment exercises this right to refuse (i.e. banning the hijab), but I still support the right itself...if that makes sense. To further clarify this, I'll give an example. A Muslim woman, wearing a hijab, enters a coffee shop in Chicago. When the woman approaches the counter to order, the shop owner refuses to serve her, citing her hijab as a reason. Although the shop owner is being bigoted and unfair (in my opinion), it is still within their rights to refuse service to the woman. I believe the woman SHOULD be able to wear her hijab wherever she pleases, but that doesn't mean I want to restrict businesses either. In conclusion, I have explained my pro-business/pro-hijab stance to many of my peers and acquaintances. All of them have grasped the concept, some even agreed with it. All except you. So hopefully this explanation helped clarify things. I don't understand the point of you bringing up neo-Nazis. Yes, a neo-Nazi establishment most likely would not allow hijabs. What exactly are you getting at? A neo-Nazi store owner banning hijabs might win approval from his comrades, but you can bet the wider, mainstream community would be whipped into a frenzy. You're saying that banning hijabs is usually more profitable. But you aren't thinking realistically. You know the politically correct times we're living in. A ban on hijabs would be attacked, challenged, and condemned quite viciously. A business or organization can't get away with that kind of discrimination so easily nowadays. Yes, I mentioned our alliance with Saudi Arabia. I even acknowledged that it was irrelevant: "but that's another can of worms." It wasn't related. So, in order to repair your ego, I apologize. In your criticism of Islamic nations, I noticed something. You were criticizing the governments, and rightly so. The Islamic GOVERNMENTS are the ones who enforced the oppression, not the victims. The victims, in this case Muslim women, had no hand in it. Let me use another example: A Muslim woman, Jaiyana, emigrated from a nation with a strict, fundamentalist rule that forced women to wear hijabs (at the minimum). Jaiyana continues to cover up, even in her new country. Not out of fear, but out of religiousness. For some unknown reason, she enters a church. The priest commands Jaiyana to remove her hijab, due to Islamic dress code being "too strict" (the same reasoning you used). You're saying that Muslim women, like Jaiyana, should be forced to comply to Euro-American dress codes; and only due to their former government's policies. The policies they had very little control over. Obviously, women aren't the ones who support the oppression against themselves. So why do you insist on punishing them for the crimes of someone else, in this case their ex-state? When did I say I wanted to exempt Muslim women from security procedures? My argument is against banning the hijab, not against searching it at an airport checkpoint. However, if a Muslim woman is under suspicion, and her hijab must be searched, this should be done in a private location. My cousin is a Muslim, and to her, removing a hijab in public is the equivalent of a Western woman removing her bra. Granted, she might be an extreme case, but my point remains. I see you say "there would be no persecution if they were forced to dress like the rest of the people around them." I find this interesting, because forcing someone to dress a certain way is LITERALLY the definition of persecution (hostility and ill-treatment due to race or religion). I await your argument.