And no, I was not assuming you are American. But in the context of this website the constitution refers to the US constitution. What I said also applies to many other constitutions.
Fortunately you don’t make the law. But, regardless, he not only violated company policy and also broke the law, his “personal preferences” put a large program of work at risk.
You leave your prejudices at the door and hire the best people for the job: one of the fundamental rules for (non-f*d) businesses.
Do you agree or not that any law limiting hiring practices should be justified or not?
If so, how do you justify religion over other criteria that are personal choices of the candidate like style, cleanliness, politeness etc?
How do you even propose to discover criteria if you start with a clean list?
I generally agree about the business point, but you seem to belive religion has no impact on fulfilling one's duties regardless of the nature of business, which is dubious even in common important professions like doctors.
In any case, most people are born into a religion and have no real choice in the matter. They acquire various markers of their religion (a name for example) from their parents. You seem to think it’s a personal choice, but for the vast majority of people that’s not the case.
In the context of the person whose resume was rejected, he was not considered for the job based on his name and his educational history, which marked him as a Muslim. Even if we accept your argument that religious practice is a choice that can be discriminated against, there is no indication that he actually was a practicing Muslim (I don’t know if he was) he was rejected, sight unseen, because of those markers.