you last argument idls that of a slippery slope which is almost exclusively a fallacy.

Ahh yes, legal precedent. Famously always fallacious....... Also, the slippery slope fallacy requires a series of actions leading to a negative consequence. This is just a direct consequence of a single action.

You are attempting to establish a law that is preventing people from expressing their legally protected beliefs. You don't think setting that precedent isn't going to have consequences?

you categorize feeling uncomfortable as inhibiting someone's rights for example? let's say I am a lone satanist, working at a government building, I am fetting judgy looks all day by Christian coworkers wearing crosses and it drives me away from the job, isn't thst inhibiting me?

Lol, where in the legal system does it claim that you have the right to be comfortable at all times?

let's say I am a public facing worker, couldn't me displaying my satanist symbols be inhibiting the public looking for whatever government service?

You have every right to display satanic symbology. How does this prevent members of the public from looking for a government service. Plus, logically if you are the government worker, they already have found the government service.....

Let's change the scenario slightly. Let's suppose you are a person of color working for the government, and a member of the public is wanting service, but is racist. Is hiring a person of color inhibiting his rights? Of course not.