So then, nobody of a religious "persuasion" or holds any religious values other than the "secularist society" outlook should attend a public university or take any curriculum that goes against the "secular vision". This is discrimination at its apex; it is the opposite of "tolerance", which the "secularists" pride themselves so much with. This view is bigoted, narrow minded, cloistered, and has been "foisted" on society, especially on the newer generations, by "secularist" and so called "progressive" university elitist academics, in order to usher in their "progressive view" of what society should look like. This is also a direct abridgment of the US Constitution, and has no ground in either historical precedent, current precedent (other than judicial activism and abuse of the constitutional limits placed upon the judiciary), historical records, writings of the Founders and such documentation that is in abundance if one only researches it and doesn't absorb the "secularist drool" that comes down the pike from the elitist press and academia (starting with John Dewey and Roger Baldwin and other like-minded secularists). So, you (society) would be totally exclusive of anyone with religious persuasions from pursuing any field of endeavor that goes against their long held beliefs. Well, if that is the case, and all religious minded people must abandon their beliefs in subservience to the secular mindset, then you should give us our tax dollars back and we will go to other institutions that will honor the US Constitution and our historical precedence. Let's see, that would generally be at least half the population - or about 150 million people! I think the people in charge that foster these types of bigoted, biased, academic rules should resign in favor of real education (isn't that what Universities are supposed to be?) where all views are discussed, debated, and honored. Otherwise, we tread down the road to the Fascist mindset of, "if you agree with me (government or societal rulers) fine, if not, shut up, get out, or we will slap you in prison! Let's don't go down that road - history teaches us better!
It is secular law that mediates our interactions. Consider this, which of these (if any) are ok due to religious considerations? A public bus driver denies a gay rider.
A public teacher will not teach a gay student.
A police officer does not respond to a gay victim.
A heart surgeon does not perform surgery on a gay patient.
A public defense attorney does not defend a gay client. Or, if religious considerations are justification over secular law, which ones? Should a Mormon be able to have multiple wives?
Should a man be able to take a child bride?
Should a religion that embraces gays be able to marry them?
Should a raped woman be stoned as in sharia law?
Should an adulterous wife be killed as the Old Testament suggests?
Should a muslim woman be able to remain veiled in a photo ID? Where do our 'secular sensibilities' override our religious ones, and why? I do personally believe that secular law should override religious law (and belief), when it regards the rights and welfare of others, our civil interactions. In that sense, yes, I think the secular mindset takes precedence. Not necessarily because it is right, but because it is the one that remains when specific religious beliefs, and secular ethics, are generalized into a Golden Rule type of civil society. It's the best place to agree to disagree. Of course, I do not think it is always easy to separate the two, but I am not afraid of a slippery slope here.
None of your examples has to do with "affirming" or agreeing with a sexual choice (it has never been conclusively proven at all by any study) that being gay is due to unavoidable genetics. So it is due to many situations and factors. However, being a bus driver has nothing to do with agreeing with or saying to someone whose sexual practices you don't agree with on moral grounds. Neither does the surgeon (I don't know any surgeon, Christian, Muslin, Jewish, or otherwise that would not work on a gay person - that is not a good correlative comparison) example. Yes, our laws prohibit polygamy, but don't outlaw marriage. So, if secular law should over-ride spiritual laws (which are the foundation of all Western law in many countries is based on - and that is fact and not fiction), then we should just outlaw religion or any religious expression at all because it might offend some non -believer. Of course, a non-believers views are hardly ever questioned in our secular press or otherwise if they offend a Judeo-Christian or Muslim believer (talk about biased). Our laws were never based on secular basis only, and it was mainly the Chrisitan religion which allowed the laws to be written to respect all others including atheism (which in itself could be classified a self-worship religion). I don't know of any Judeo-Christian believer who treats women like they do in other parts of the world like stoning them if they talk to a man or get raped like you point out. Idon't agree with Sharia law either. So, affimation is quite different from "accommodation" in the public sector, so let's not confuse the two. You might want to read the writings of Lord Blackstone, and of Joseph Storey or John Jay for clarification. Yes, secular (in that sense) laws, based on Judeo-Christian heritage and Mosaic law, is what we are structured by, but it does not dis-include religious expression or outlaw religious beliefs, violation of conscience, the shutting out of religious expression in the public sector, or any such thing. When secular law over-rides all religious belief, conscience, and expression, we will cease to exist as "America" and will become another nation altogether.
Ok, I can see the distinction between affirmation and accommodation. But, I don't see this addressing the second list of issues where current secular law currently overrides religious law. Unless that you are saying that a specific type of Judeo-Christian law should not be overridden by secular law. But, there is another thing to consider here. Our Constitution was designed to be amended and to reflect the evolving will of the people due to cultural change. Of course, you must agree it was good that we changed our Founding Father's view on slavery, and the limited right to vote. So, even if the Founding Fathers were Christian, and framed their society in the context of Judeo-Christian culture, isn't it the nature of our System that we should be able to move away from this as circumstances change? If the people want same-sex marriage, then our Constitutional democracy can allow for that change to be made. If the people want a more secular type of civil law, then that is what they can expect to have. I can agree with you that at some point, it becomes uncomfortable when religious practice needs to defer to secular law. Right or wrong, uncommon behavior is not as well-protected as common behavior. Look at the Mormons and polygamy. I'm not sure that it was right that they needed to give that up, and yet, we aren't fighting for their right to get it back. Perhaps what you are defending is reasonable from a certain Judeo-Christian point of view. However, it is a minority view, and because gays are now widely embraced in our culture, there are few that are interested in protecting the right not to affirm them. So in some sense, although I find the refusal to affirm a person's homosexuality via counselling to be reasonable from a certain perspective, I don't think the perspective has much place in our current culture in the US. I feel the same way about some practices of some fundamental Muslims, especially regarding the rights and equality of women. That is, I expect everyone to affirm the equality of women in civil interactions in the US, regardless of what their religious beliefs are. From some religious perspectives this is a secular affront. However, it is the current shared culture of our Country, and our laws reflect it.
Here, here! The important thing that you state, and I wholeheartedly agree with, is that the Constitution can be "amended" to reflect changes in culture. This is a very big distinction between the amendment process (which was purposefully made to be difficult so as to avoid the "tyranny of the majority" or the "tyranny of the executive" of the "tyranny of the oligarchy" (such as 9 robed persons or the administrative state where "laws" are passed by unelected and unaccountable individuals or "enlightened committees"). Today, we have "sloppy, purposefully obfuscated processes - purposefully I might add - to pass rules, "laws" and the "twisting of the Constitution to validate a law based on personal preference instead of using the Constitution to interpret the law itself. Instead of using the "ruler" to interpret the law, we use the "law" to force an interpretation of the "ruler" in order to make the law make sense - this is judicial tyranny at its worst (no matter what the political label). Again, see the Dred Scott decision as an obvious "twisting" of the Constitution to uphold "personal" preferences and biases. This "ammendment" process should be used instead of judges (or courts) overturning the "constitutional" process of ammendment which we see too much of today. Instead of King George, we get "King Judge XXXX". If they truly WANT to be constitutional, they would follow the process, but alas, many do not because they don't believe in the judicial restraint placed on the judiciary by the Constitution. They violate the very Constitutions they are sworn to uphold (whether they be State or Federal).