"""Actually, constitutional principles have nothing to do with the will of the majority""
I feel like a 40 watt light bulb here, could you enlighten me on "Constitutional Principles" Please?
Sure. Thanks for asking.
Generally, I meant simply that constitutional protections and prohibitions exist not because the majority wants them, but because ... well, they exist.
Second, certain protections in the Constitution can be seen as specifically protecting the minority view from being "suppressed" by the majority view. First Amendment cases are the obvious example - for instance, protection of speech that is merely unpopular (as opposed to seditious, libelous, etc.), and protection of religious views that are merely less popular than others (as opposed to illegal, etc.). For the latter, you could look at some of the cases dealing with the rights of Jehovah's Witnesses or Christian Scientists, for instance.
I'm not saying this man's views rise to the level of constitutional protection (though who knows, they may...), simply that one cannot judge their worthiness of protection by the fact that they are not the majority view.
Here's a pretty good explanation I googled on the free speech issue, if you're interested:
http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html