I hate to create what seems to be a double standard but secular law people throwing a "tantrum" over proposed religious law is not the same as religious law people throwing a tantrum over secular law or prevention of religious law.
In order to prevent a theocracy, our constitution specifically rules against religious based laws. A secular government is the only way to prevent true freedom of religion for all faiths under the same flag. Any erosion of secular law or support for religious law is against this idea. You can't support religious based legislation and say you support freedom and democracy. If you support religious law it means you want a theocratic government.
In order to prevent a theocracy, our constitution specifically rules against religious based laws.
This is not necessarily true. I like your post but at this point, I have to disagree in part. Our constitution protects against the ESTABLISHMENT of laws that are either quasi endorsed or favored to a particular religion, .The tailoring of a law specifically designed to promote , encourage or defend a singular religion is discouraged and prohibited by our constitution yet laws protecting certain aspects of a singular religion are protected by our constitution. Religious based laws live within our constitution and are protected by law. The 1st Amendment allows for

room. A secular government doesn't endorse but it doesn't prohibit either. A secular government moves with the intention of separating itself from religion I get that but it lives within it's laws, laws of ever changing results, laws tested at the highest level.The RFRA signed into law by Clinton protects religious freedoms. So do we have a boa fide secular government?.
The first amendment is the most challenged and yet the one that is most ambiguous, ambiguous enough that SCOTUS has no definitive answer as to the protection or prosecution of religious freedoms. It is true that the constitution does not allow for 1 religion to gain favor over another but it is the courts, not written law, that determine the value of a law. The constitution will protect religious based laws if those laws apply to all religions. A strict interpretation is demanded when confronting such a law, a governments interest doesn't have to be absolute it can be compromised to allow the whole become beneficiaries.