One of those things that doesn't so much rely on government to provide but requires government to not screw with. Like free speech.
The secular version came along many years later and was called "freedom of conscience" but was preceded by "freedom of thought." All attempts at corralling religion ultimately involve curtailing freedom of conscience and thought. These used to be liberal *and* progressive values, but increasingly are considered suspect (when those doing the thinking don't agree with "us"--which is, of course, one of the first hallmarks of virulent forms of totalitarianism, religious or secular).
The boundary between "respect," "tolerate," and "reject" can be found between approval, toleration, and infringement on others.
I don't eat pork. It's a choice, but one rooted in belief. It hurts nobody except perhaps pig farmers, but they have no right to my business so it infringes on nobody's rights. I extend this to my not infringing on others. If I'm invited to dinner and pork chops are the main course, oh, well. I nibble around the edges and seek to avoid embarrassing or confronting my host--the invitation was intended as a good thing, so why should I feel insulted or humiliated? I don't expect a restaurant to cater to my needs, so if the Cobb salad has ham in it and it's a problem removing it, I don't scream "religious discrimination". I either don't get the Cobb salad or I go elsewhere. To insist that they conform with my requirements beyond free-market norms is to become their oppressor. Now, that's a fairly neutral thing, because to my knowledge nobody has as a value "salads must include ham." If my friend, John, Catholic and a ham-humper in the nicest sense of the word, went to a kosher restaurant and insisted that out of respect for his right to eat ham the Orthodox Jewish owner put ham in his salad, John and I would have serious words. If that idea doesn't bother you, let's make it a halal restaurant or a vegan restaurant. (Some people are fine at insults to religion, but don't touch their veganism.)
I also keep Sabbath. Similarly, it infringes on nobody's rights, but the guy who mows my yard finds it incredibly inconvenient. I won't let him mow nor will I pay him on Saturday. Now, I've run into employment issues, but I don't see that it's fair to force my employer to accommodate every quirk of my values system and behavioral norms so either I take the hit to my wallet or I find a new job; if he can accommodate me, of course, then it's not a problem. But if an employer rejected sabbatarianism as immoral, oh, well, that's his choice. I'm not going to use my value system to coerce him to do something he finds wrong and support me. That's the essence of personal liberty--others don't force you to positively participate in what you think is immoral or corrupt, and make accepting your values a prerequisite for him to be able to support himself or do what is otherwise innocuous. I'd find it equally reprehensible being forced to go to a meeting that denounced somebody I believed innocent and be expected to vote on his "punishment" Soviet-style as it would be to make a poster that declares that something I think wrong is admirable and to be celebrated. The principle cuts both ways; I'm sort of tired of "if it helps me, it's a moral good, but if the same thing helps my enemy then it's evil" sort of self-serving bias being called "fair".
Now, if I was part of the majority I would fully expect the laws to be written to make life easy for the majority. It seems stupid and foolish--and entirely not the case--that a majority puts itself at the service of a minority of the population. Even when we find calls for that kind of behavior on the part of members of the "majority", it's not usually by those who would consider themselves wronged or inconvenienced. In fact, it's a question of how we define "majority"--by race, class, ethnicity, political persuasion, religion, etc.? In fact, in my 50 years of observing, I've noticed that the calls for accommodating and tolerating/appreciating a minority have gone from being accommodationist for one group to openly reviling and calling for oppressing (but in a progressive way, using the *right* standards for oppressing) another group, still called "the majority" but now forming less than 50% of the population.
However, I would expect the laws to allow for other behaviors. Even if they were offensive. If too offensive, then a "public morals" clause would push the behavior into spaces protected by a right to privacy. After all, if I have a right to masturbate that doesn't mean I have a right to climb onto the podium during the presidential inauguration in 2021 and squirt onto the new president.
So, to be honest, I have no qualms saying that most Salafist thought is tolerable. Perhaps not to be appreciated or admired, but if it only wrongs them (like many consider Sabbath-keeping to mean depriving myself of all the fun to be had on Saturdays), meh. Their choice. Even in raising their kids in the faith, well, I'd say I consider many "culturally approved" practices in the AfAm community I live in to be harmful to kids and yet there's not only no call for banning those practices, there's an attempt to reform institutions that contact the AfAm community to accommodate those practices (with the effect of hurting others for whom the institutions are already accommodating and even reinforcing--schools, for instance).
Same for politics. If I lived in a majority Salafist country, I'd fully expect to have my public expressions of religion curtailed. (Oh, wait, they already are. Anti-Semites, even those who claim to just hate Israel's political repression of the righteous Palestinians, fail to distinguish between a Sabbath-keeping torah-observant Irish-American and a Zionist Jew when it comes to hurling invective.) I'd also expect to have public expressions of religion biased in favor of the majority.
I'd draw the line when it came to their moral standards being enforced not just on what I can and can't do in public, but what I *must* do in public.
I personally find that much of the "criticism" of moral, religious, and political beliefs start off by targeting oppressive behavior, but quickly turn into requiring positive actions to prove that there's no thought crime being committed. This was one of the big horrors of 20th century political movements which makes them very much like some of the most repressive of religious persecutions: It's not just what you do in public that's at issue, it's what you believe, think, feel that's at issue, so at every step you must signal your affirmative adherence and commitment to the publicly promulgated set of values, and you're always being scrutinized for the smallest deviation from True Thinking and the One True Path leading to the Shining Future the dominant values/belief system says is around the corner if we just conform, whether that "path" is secular or religious.
= new reply since forum marked as read
