Tale goes both ways for rights. Values projecting onto values here, both directions.
Ultimate authority in a secular society is secular law. Secular law passes judgement just as religions pass judgement. Religions can influence secular law just as secular law can decide to influence what religions are allowed to influence.
It’s the nature of a pluristic society which guarantees freedom of religion which is freedom -for- religion to exact influence within its realm.
But when it crosses into the legal, secular, political realm, a different set of laws ultimately applies. Those laws _can_ be influenced by religion but only as much as the secular allows it.
Combo of freedom of speech and separation of church/state.
Situation’s a little different in societies where there’s more of a blending of the secular and religious.
But ultimately, diplomacy of a sort is the answer. Debate is a part of diplomacy. Lawmaking is a part of diplomacy. It works and crosses whatever lines we feel like drawing today.
For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses are an extreme iconoclastic religion.
They’ve successfully lobbied to have freedom from iconography within schools and courts, successfully lobbying against oath-taking. Quakers have had similar consciencious objections to oath-taking.
In a sense their religions were imposing upon the state.
But it just so happens that their religions imposition of iconoclasm and non-oath-taking ALSO happen to be in-line with the secular needs of the society, so it was more or less agreeable.