Interesting, it seems where you live my choice of examples was a poor one. Maybe this one is extreme enough to make my point clear: If someone shows up to an interview for a position at the NAACP with a shaved head and swastika tattoos wearing a German SS style uniform, would he get the job? Should he? I think in this case the answer to both is no. He obviously wouldn't fit in with the culture of the organization and trying to ignore that would only cause disruption to the workplace environment.
True that isn't realistic example, but it illustrates the point that social groups, by definition, have some distinguishing characteristics (looks and/or behavior) and have a mostly coherent set of core values. I think using those to assess how well people will work (or socialize) together is acceptable as long as it is used carefully, erring on the side of tolerance when there is any doubt. Although, that is just my personal opinion based on how interactions between groups in the societies I have been exposed to are generally handled. Your society may have different views on this and that's okay.
From your description, it seems like Cape Town has a rather unique culture that is far more accepting of superficial differences than those of most other places. Actually it reminds me a bit of Austin Texas or Portland Oregon. Both of those cities have adopted the slogan "Keep $CITY_NAME Weird". Where I live (Southwest US) is more moderate in that regard. Some people walk around in a cowboy hat and boots with a six shooter strapped to their hip, but it isn't that common and there is a general expectation that how you dress is associated with your career. Although, we aren't anywhere near as restrictive as in (for example) New England. There, especially in New York, it's expected that anyone who is a professional will wear a suit and tie to work and keep up a similar style of appearance after hours.
Which of these approaches is better? I don't know of a good way to judge that. There isn't much correlation with successful economic outcomes. And it seems most people tend to prefer whichever system they're a part of, though the trend does seem to be toward more tolerance of personal style than away from it right now.
As far as the "power relationship" thing goes in employment, I think that is entirely dependent on the dynamics of the local economy. In places with a limited number of employers who dominate the market and little, if any, employee organization it is a serious issue and could warrant more stringent regulation on how they can discriminate during hiring. Other places are on the opposite end with the employers beholden to strong unions who set the hiring policies and, in that case, the unions should probably be required to accept any qualified member. But there's also a third option that I think doesn't require as much regulation. When there are a large number of employers with different corporate cultures and expectations and there is enough employee freedom to organize or not as they see fit, there are enough options that employers and employees are on roughly equal footing and strictly regulating their interactions isn't necessary.
I don't know if you can tell, but I'm more Libertarian than Anarchist. There are some interesting parallels and differences between those philosophies, that volumes could be written on (and have) without adequately addressing.
By the way, this has been a good conversation. It's not often that a discussion concerning topics people are passionate about can go on this long without flames erupting and name calling, especially on the internet.
