No such right exists in our constitution.
The Bill of Rights is a restriction on government, not a positive granting of rights. Rights are inherent. You have no inherent right not to be exposed to the free exercise of religion.
The Framers feared someday their work might be turned on its head and used to censor religion.
Annals of Congress. August 15, 1789You do have means to prevent Americans from annoying you with their religious speech. Repeal the first amendment. Pass laws censoring religious expression. Be honest about it. Do it within the framework of our constitution. Don't pretend the Bill of Rights says what it does not.Mr. Huntington said that he feared, with the gentleman first up on this subject, that the words (of the first amendment) might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion. He understoon the amendment to mean what had been expressed by the gentleman from Virginia: but others might find it convenient to put another construction upon it. The ministers of their congregations in the Eastward were maintained by the contributions of those who belonged to their society; the expense of building meeting-houses was contributed in the same manner. These things were regulated by by-laws. If an action was brought before a Federal Court on any of these cases, the person who had neglected to perform his engagements could not be compelled to do it; for a support of ministers, or bulding of places of worship might be construed into a religious establishement.
By the charter of Rhode Island, no religion could be established by law; he could give a history of the effects of such a regulation; indeed the people were now enjoying the blessed fruits of it. He hoped, thereffore , the amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the rights of conscience and a free exercise of the rights of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all.
Mr. Madison thought, if the word national was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establsh a religion to which they would comple others to conform. He thought if the word national was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.
Continue down this path and courts will, no doubt about it, create new interpretations of many things you do not like. And when they do, you will have no recourse because you have allowed unelected judges, not elected representatives to determine the laws of this county.