To shave or not to shave?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/15/sikh-student-turban-rotc_n_7588642.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000051

I brought this topic up on my Facebook page and got several responses about it and thought it would make a good blog post as I had little more to say about it. So to recap the article Sikh college student, Iknoor Singh, was being refused the ability join his school's ROTC program because he would not cut his hair, shave his facial hair or remove his turban due to religious reasons. A US District Court Judge overruled this refusal stating that it violated his constitutional rights. This ruling allows Singh to participate in the ROTC without having to cut his hair, shave, or remove his turban and gives him time to apply for a waiver on religious grounds. It was also stated that this ruling does not      mean that Singh will not meet a similar issue when requesting full inclusion in the military. The Army has extended their grooming guidelines recently and has offered over 197,000 exceptions for secular grooming in the past so this is, but a small situation. It does open doors to those who may have been reluctant to join the ROTC program previously due to religious conflicts.

My question in regards to this article and ruling is this: how far does this rabbit hole go? See my thought is that this individual is 1) not going into just any job, it is the military and 2) is joining the military under his own free will. This man was not drafted and if he had been I may have a very different opinion. As it is that he was not, this concession scares me. He is joining a government organization that has a very rigid set of standards for appearance. The article says he wants to serve his country. I’m sorry, but there are plenty of governments positions in which he can “serve” that do not require the violation of his religious guidelines or that he request that the military guidelines be changed for him. If we blur the lines for one person or group of peoples, based on crying “religious freedom” then where does the next hard line stop it?

Now I do what to mention that though I do agree with the fact that Freedom of Religion is a right, and one worth fighting for, no one ever said that he was not allowed to pray or actively practice his faith while in the military. Uniformity, especially within the military, plays a very important role. I found this breakdown from an individual on Yahoo Answers while researching this topic and the author states:

“Uniformity is a tool for the Army. It helps instill self-discipline, attention to detail, and the ability to follow instructions for each soldier, and it provides leaders with an indicator of who among their soldiers actually is making an effort and who is just trying to do the minimum necessary to stay out of trouble. 
How crisp a uniform is pressed, how well boots are shined (when we had to shine them, the new boots don't need it) placement of badges are all indicators of the effort someone puts in. 
Uniformity also helps ensure a comradery, and team environment. Everyone looks the same because they wear the same uniform. The only way for a soldier to separate themselves from the rest is either to exceed the standards, and encourage his teammates to do the same, or rock the boat, and hope he doesn't get thrown out.” - https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060730175104AAV8har

If the uniform and the rules surrounding it are not to be respected then where does it stop? If there are exceptions made for select individuals how are those exceptions to be judged and disciplined if not followed? This issue just seems to raise more questions than provide answers and in an unstable time is that really what a government entity needs? I personally think this is a way bigger issue than one person and if it isn’t perceived that way now it will be soon.