"What if I want to be a guidance counsellor? Or a principal? They’re telling me I can’t have career advancement if I wear a religious symbol,"

yes. that's correct; the society is telling you that it doesn't want people that insist on outward displays of faith to occupy positions of power.

people just keep restating this as though it's impossible, or absurd or something.

but, it is in fact the absolute foundational enlightenment principle of western society.

what i find baffling is that we've come to a point where such a large percentage of the population is baffled by what is supposed to be the principle of our own civilization - that there is in fact a separation between church and state. how did we get here? and how do we reverse it?

"...apparently what I have on my head is more important than what I am as a person and what I give to society.”

this is a false dilemma. the society is saying that what you have on your head represents a value system that modernity finds repugnant - the society is saying "we do not want people with your beliefs and values to occupy positions of power, because we are afraid that you may abuse them.".

and, it is in fact a simple test - if you are a muslim, for example, it is easy to prove that you don't believe in the hateful and oppressive aspects of your religion by removing your religious observances at work. otherwise, by wearing these symbols, you are broadcasting your support for a violent, oppressive system, while wielding power over other people.

the important issue here is not the rights of expression of employees - and there is nothing in the law that restricts this expression on an absolute basis. the important issue here is the rights of the people being serviced by the state, and namely their right to be free from religious authority. they can't find another teacher, or another jail guard. it is this accommodation that the state must be primarily concerned with.

i want to see the issue properly adjudicated because a proper ruling would actually legitimize the primary basis of it, even as it reigns in some excesses. by keeping it out of court, they're allowing reactionaries and conservatives to push all kinds of ignorance about it.

if you have a good argument, and the secularists do, then you should be able to support it in court. for the sake of secularism itself, they must end the cowardice and revoke the clause.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-mcgill-philosopher-adds-voice-to-chorus-of-criticism-against-bill-21/