I've come to realize that no moral issues can be boiled down into black and white. All moral debates have strong examples on either side.
The goal of government, however, is not to take a stance on moral debates. It's to create laws that are amenable to both situations.
I believe with this professor is trying to say is that the constitution, or written law, should not include laws that are categorically protective of civil liberties that may not be culturally acceptable. We need to break down civil liberties in this particular arena into more granular cases and judge based on those cases as opposed to an overarching blank check for religion.
The goal of government, however, is not to take a stance on moral debates. It's to create laws that are amenable to both situations.
I believe with this professor is trying to say is that the constitution, or written law, should not include laws that are categorically protective of civil liberties that may not be culturally acceptable. We need to break down civil liberties in this particular arena into more granular cases and judge based on those cases as opposed to an overarching blank check for religion.