I agree with most of this. I think the word "hate" is a bit strong in this context, as, apart from some individuals, I do not believe there is a lot of hate in regards to LGBTQ people. You can argue that any level of intolerance = hate, but I would disagree in some cases and depending on context. We are a part of a growing group of parents of LGBTQ children, and in talking with other parents and people in the church with no ties to the LGBTQ community at all, I think there is more of a hesitancy and misunderstanding than outright hate. I see it in some people. My BIL, whom I have referenced before, is one I would attribute the term "hate" to, with a very strong "not in my household" attitude. He even started shunning our daughter when she came out, avoiding her at gatherings and purposely not inviting her to family activities, but in my experience he is in the minority for that strong of a negative attitude towards it. Most people we talk to are somewhere between confused -- and yes even a bit frightened as they have no frame of reference -- and sympathetic, if not fully outright supportive. Some are supportive as well, of course, but again, that is in the minority. It is really like a bell curve, when I think about it. A small faction on one end, endlessly hateful and intolerant, and a small faction on the other, fully embracing and supporting, and everyone else, the majority, in between. Although I think for the most part it skews more to the tolerant end, rather than the intolerant.
Now I could be completely wrong, this is just based on our experience as we have dealt with the fall-out, so to speak, of our daughter coming out nearly 5 years ago now, and in talking to a lot of people both with, and without, any ties to the community.
The church believes it is doctrinally wrong, so it will never fully accept the lifestyle as "ok". Their stance is still that same-sex relations are sinful, and that will likely never change. But they are becoming marginally more accepting, imo. Yes this bill allows them to maintain their doctrinal outlook, which to some is very important, and others will use as an excuse to marginalize or outright discriminate against others. I think what the church is looking for in this bill is not the right to discriminate, but rather the right to not be forced to accept something they view as doctrinally wrong. They want the protection from being forced legally to not just accept these relationships, but to fully legitimize them against their doctrines. I think that is an important distinction, as freedom of religion is also a founding principle of our country. And though we may disagree with it, I view it somewhat similarly to free speech. The religion can believe what it wants and allow in the members it wants, and allow those members to progress in whatever doctrine or rituals they find important, but they have to be able to operate with minimal government intervention, even if we disagree with that. The right to belief is as important as the right to speech, imo. In fact you could argue that belief and expressing that belief is just another form of free speech. It is a fine line to walk, that is for sure. I am not sure there is an answer that will ever satisfy everyone.
