There is a really interesting point that I think you're getting at, but choosing well known and already politically charged examples undermines the discussion by bringing cognitive dissonance in at the ground floor.

What about an example where religious belief fundamentally excludes someone from doing the actual job? Suppose a Muslim wants a job as a bartender, but refuses to actually serve people drinks because they consider it a violation on the rule against alcohol. Should the bar grant them a religious exemption and just accept that they won't be serving alcoholic beverages when that person's the bartender on duty?

Or what if two different religious beliefs come into direct conflict? Suppose a Jehovah's Witness whose manager is also a JW decides to leave the religion. Jehovah's Witnesses consider shunning apostates to be a religious commandment, so their manager might feel obligated to fire them. Is that OK?

Depending on how we resolve those conflicts, perhaps people can at least agree that there should be limits to religious exemptions, even if they don't agree on the specifics. But perhaps that's at least a starting point for a conversation. And perhaps from there we can extend out to Durham's position.

There are also people who believe you shouldn't be allowed to wear a head scarf or turban. Or be allowed to pray five times a day.

Of note, every single one of your examples impacts multiple people in significant ways. None of them are people just wanting to practice their faith in isolation. I think the cases you describe aren't really analogous.

-doctors refusing to abide by the World Professional Association of Transgender Health Standard of Care's Standards of Care for Hormone Replacement Therapy and Gender Confirming Surgeries

-employers refusing to employ queer people

-landlords refusing queer tenants

This is exactly why I oppose all religious exemptions.

In all of your examples, the “religious accommodation” harms a third party.

For your examples, you've chosen only one side.