Alright, I'll gladly concede that I did not know that, but I strongly disagree that my comparisons you neglected are "irrelevant". I think that's the key discriminator.
The view on stoning in Bangladesh could be religious, but it could also be cultural, as it's not equal elsewhere where practicing muslims reside.
And if it, as I posit, isn't a core tenet of the religion, and if it is, as I posit, one in nazism, it can't be solved through cultural tolerance.
An atmosphere of free speech that allows for satire and conversation are the best weapons against extremist ideology.
Second, it's irrelevant. In my hypothetical, I'm talking about specific individuals who have conceded to believing that apostates should be executed. If they invoke their religion as a shield for having that view, and have done nothing otherwise illegal, you can't refuse to serve them under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.