Anthony Kennedy's Jurisprudence, Value-Neutrality, and Freedom for Legal Obligation

Does the constitutional principle, one that I associate with Anthony Kennedy most, that people have the right, and the constitution protects this, to define the good life, conception of the good and the good life, the meaning of life, life's value, morality, the summum bonum for themselves, and that this principle forbids legislation that hampers that and people's pursuit/promotion/implementation of their own personal sense/value/view of the good.

But if this is true, then can we even reject internally inconsistent ones?
Even if we say, yes we can
This still leaves many, social darwinism for just one example, conceivable/possible moral conceptions of the good that are internally inconsistent (no matter how implausible or arbitrary or random or fortuitously coincidental given the preferences of those who espouse them) but grievously undesirable and wrong.

Would such a conception of the good that requires murder or theft or assault, like a religion that requires unwilling human sacrifice or a moral nonrealist sociopath, or etc., justify legally proscribed actions and invalidate the laws prohibiting them, at least in these cases/exceptions?

Presumably no, but that means then that this right to define one's own conception of the good, which is really (at least seems like) value-neutrality, does not necessarily invalidate prohibitions, and thus cannot be the sole premise in a sound argument for the rights to establish a freedom and invalidate (again, in any way) its prohibition.