I’m not willing to go that far. Pastafarianism is in the vein of “A Modest Proposal.”
Swift wasn’t really suggesting that poor Irish peasants sell their children to rich people to be cooked and eaten. He was pointing out the cruelty of his society’s attitudes toward the poor.
Pastafarians don’t really believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster - they’re pointing out the inanity of allowing governmental policy to be shaped by religious doctrine.
I think it needs to be clearly spelled out. The rational approach would be “we have to see your face.” Then hijab is fine, yarmulkes are fine, turbans are fine, and, yes, colanders are fine if that’s the picture you want people to see every time you’re carded at a restaurant. Burqas are not acceptable because we can’t see the face and therefore it’s not a photo ID, not to mention the fact that people who are driving cars should not be wearing face masks that limit vision in the first place.
It’s been held as perfectly acceptable to limit freedom of religion when exercising that freedom would put others at risk - the alternative is that human sacrifice should be permitted if your religion demands it.
But wearing a colander on your head when getting your license picture taken does nothing to put the public at risk, so there’s no acceptable reason to violate the first amendment by making him take it off.