but, that's the point.
excluding people because you reject their values and beliefs is the most fundamental characteristic of democracy and any system that takes that away is a body blow to the concept of democratic freedom. freedom of association is more important than freedom of speech, as free speech requires freedom of association as a pre-requisite to be workable. it is utterly imperative that the secular majority, where it exists, is able to exclude the religious from participating in society, as a statement of principles and values. rejecting that is synonymous with rejecting democracy.
but we know that that's the point and that that's what these counter-arguments are about. these people don't give the slightest fuck about democracy. they think they're special. in fact, they think they're superior. they think they deserve special rules because they're superior, and that their beliefs are not subject to criticism because they're better than you, and they'll even try to silence you if you try to criticize them. well, look at what they actually believe, and process how stupid it is, and then try to get your head around the delusional thinking underlying that. then, they wonder why they're being excluded, and complain it's not fair.
sociologists would describe laws like this an informal means of social control. the ostracism is intended to send the message that they're being excluded because their beliefs are not acceptable. that's the point. that's the intention. if you realize it, you understand. they need to get the point and adjust, not sit on their thumbs and bitch and whine about it.