The public consents to those.
"Equal Justice for All" is a faith based beliefs, since Justice is faith based, never been proven to exist scientifically or legally, yet the public consents to this.
We consent to use the same calendar system, and to use the days of the week and months of the year that contain references to names of Greek gods.
So if the public consents, there is not anyone arguing against an establishment of religious or faith based biased.
However, in matters of beliefs about social marriage relations, both left and right disagree, so the state policy should remain neutral and only have "civil unions" or "domestic partnership" contracts for custody or estates/financial or legal guardianship agreements, absent any references to social or sexual relations which is separate.
It can still be illegal to have sexual relations with any person unable to give consent. (Currently even that law isn't equally enforced in cases of rape of unconscious persons where victims are still partially blamed for getting drunk which blurs the line when consent was violated.)
With LGBT bathroom policies, the neutral position is to have single stall "unisex" restrooms so that nobody's rights, security or beliefs are violated or forced to change.
With school prayer, Texas set up a neutral "moment of silence" so that this didn't violate anyone's beliefs and people don't have to participate but have the option to pray.
As long as people consent, then it isn't counted as the govt forcing either prohibition or establishment of religion.
It's when someone dissents and sues the govt, then the policy can be amended to accommodate instead of exclude or discriminate.
But the changes also cannot introduce another bias that causes another consequence that violates the same clause, such as not trying to impose LGBT policies as protections that impose on people of other beliefs and end up violating the same standards of equal protection of expression/beliefs without discrimination by creed.
The ACA mandates went too far.
The LGBT bathroom and sports policies went too far by imposing on others.
The changes to allow same sex marriage went too far by trying to "establish" same sex marriage instead of merely removing bans by the state that were Unconstitutional for imposing beliefs.
Both the policies and bans on CRT and LGBT being taught in schools go too far by either establishing or prohibiting policy on beliefs and expression instead of letting people decide democratically per school and district on their own policies.
Etc
This is why I advocate for setting up representation by party and mediation per school district and party precinct so people can democratically resolve conflicts and decide their own policies locally and it doesn't have to be one policy for an entire city, county, state or the nation where personal beliefs may differ.
The govt/public policy should remain neutral and equally inclusive to accommodate all beliefs, and the people need to decide the highest level of policy where they consent to the same standards and only use govt to enforce that.
As for criminal inability to respect consent of others, that requires counseling therapy and should not be allowed to influence public policy. So not respecting the age of consent of children is an issue of abuse and needs to be resolved as its own issue.
Similar with inability to respect and accommodate political beliefs of others which becomes legal and govt abuse if these conflicts aren't resolved by mediation to agree on a neutral policy.
