The separation of church and state is of course a wildly accepted viewpoint, one of which I adhere to and one of which I view as a fundamental building block of modern democracy.
However, I think when we speak of it, it is important as well to speak of the social contract in general, the reasons for it, and it's limitations.
I believe John Locke stated it best when he said in Two treatise of government:
$1:
To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man. A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.
In this lies the groundwork for freedom of religion and action amongst other things.
However, It is as important to note that we should be as free as is humanly possible without infringing on the rights and freedoms of others. Herein lies the problem, the freedom of others of course involves freedom of thought and expression. It is my assertion that it is impossible to be free without being free to act as you believe and to be free to express these beliefs. However, as the social contract was enacted as a means of protection from seclusion, the security of all is equally as important.
And so, when we consider what it means to have a separation of church and state, we must also consider what it means to be free, free to act and believe without threat to ones own security.
Our determination must weigh the value of the separation of church and state itself versus the value of our individual rights to be safe from not only the dangers of segregation but also the dangers of persecution from the state.
Because the social contract is itself an agreement of individuals and is based on a collective agreement to provide for one another without threat or persecution, in order to justify the persecution(i.e. removal of ones right to expression) It should first be demonstrated that this expression is a greater threat to the freedom of all than the segregation and persecution itself. I don't believe that the Quebec has made this case. In my opinion this whole charter of values is merely a distraction from the corruption and controversy that is currently taking place and for that reason, as much as I am a believer is secular government, I could never support such a measure.
*edit accepted, not excepted- doh
CKA Uber 
CKA Uber 
CKA Uber 
CKA Elite 
