>Yes, but so is freedom of (practicing -- including and especially as a public official) religion. One doesn't go without the other.

I agree. There is no ban on practicing one’s religion. All religions are defined in theistic terms. Not by clothing.

>Your answer to religious bigotry in the west is "let them move elsewhere"???

Of course, not. I am just saying that things like personal wardrobe preference in public spaces is not religious bigotry.

But what is common law can be construed as discrimination by those who disagree with it. When a law is applied uniformly, it is not discrimination. That was my point.

Case in point: the French ‘hijab ban’. It wasn’t about Muslims or hijabs at all, but was rather ‘French ban on face covering’.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering

[..]The French ban on face covering (French: LOI n° 2010-1192: Loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public,[1] "Law of 2010-1192: Act prohibiting concealment of the face in public space") is an act of parliament passed by the Senate of France on 14 September 2010, resulting in the ban on the wearing of face-covering headgear, including masks, helmets, balaclavas, niqābs and other veils covering the face in public places, except under specified circumstances.

This ban does not apply to the hijab, as it does not cover the face. The ban also applies to the burqa, a full-body covering, if it covers the face. Consequently, full body costumes and Zentais (skin-tight garments covering entire body) were banned.

In April 2011, France became the first European country to impose a ban on full-face veils in public areas.

Public debate exacerbated concerns over immigration, nationalism, secularism, security, and sexuality.

Arguments supporting this proposal include that face coverings prevent the clear identification of a person (which may be a security risk, or a social hindrance within a society which relies on facial recognition and expression in communication), that the alleged forcing of women to cover their faces is sexist, and that Muslims who continue this practice should be forced to assimilate into traditional French social norms.

Arguments against include that the ban encroaches on individual freedoms,[5] and that it discriminates against interpretations of Islam that require or encourage women to wear face coverings, that it takes away the choice of women to decide whether to dress according to a particular standard of modesty, and prevents anonymity in situations where it might be socially or personally desirable. [..]

Religious expression by way of clothing was prohibited only in schools. And this included religious symbols from other religions as well.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_scarf_controversy_in...

[..]While the law forbidding the veil applies to students attending publicly funded primary schools and high schools, it does not refer to universities. Applicable legislation grants them freedom of expression as long as public order is preserved.

In public hospitals, employees are expected to respect the principle of secularism. In nursing schools, interviews are an official requirement for entry, during which applicants may be asked if they are willing to remove their veil either altogether or for the purpose of wearing a disposable cap, such as those worn in operating rooms.

As far as patients are concerned, the rule is to respect religious preferences.[..]

I don’t think any of this is ‘religious bigotry’. It is secular democracy.

>I can also say atheism is incompatible with democracy because it exists solely in hostility to theistic religions (unlike agnostics). But so long as atheists don't try (or rather stop) to prevent religious folks from practicing their religion in a way that does not infringe on rights they are welcome.

I do not understand this? Especially the definition of atheists. Can you elaborate please?