It's not hard, it's quite literally impossible.
If there's a person who believes God is real, and the Bible is real, and homosexuals are sinners... and another person who is homosexual and doesn't believe in God, where can there be compromise? I'm neither, just looking at this from above.
The best you can do is disenfranchising anything less than the majority's opinion.
I think the current US model works well. Free speech, unless it's going to lead to immediate harm and such.
Anything more than that is a step into authoritarianism, and where I fear we're headed. The private sector has already tried to be said arbiters, so it's interesting to see where this ends up.
What you claim to be impossible is in fact routinely and successfuly done. Because the point of hate speech bans is not at all to police opinions, it's about making sure everyone can live in peace no matter what opinion anyone holds.
* believing that God is real, and the Bible is real, and homosexuals are sinners is completely outside the scope of the law, since it only concerns speech, not beliefs.
* saying "God is real, and the Bible is real, and homosexuals are sinners" is also not affected (this is dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, frequently stated in public) because no matter whether you believe it to be true or not, it does not imply anyone should do anything in particular, and thus does not affect the public peace.
* saying "God hates homosexuals and they will burn in hell", still the same, what God does in hell is outside the scope of the law.
* saying "Every god-fearing man should do god's will and kill homosexuals on sight" in public in front of a crowd - BEEEP, BEEP, BEEP, we got ourselves a statement suited to causing a disturbance of the public peace, go to jail for between three months and five years.
* saying "People should not let homosexuals into their homes" - not affected, whom people let into your private homes is not a matter of public peace.
* saying "Companies should not employ homosexuals" - again not affected for the same reason, although companies who actually refuse to employ homosexuals would be in violation of an entirely different (anti-discrimination) law.
So you see: it's not actually that difficult.
> I think the current US model works well. Free speech, unless it's going to lead to immediate harm and such. Anything more than that is a step into authoritarianism
Yeah but all of those things said that you say are apparently okay can lead to declining mental health in gay individuals, who eventually kill themselves after years or decades of mental abuse.
The best you can do is disenfranchising anything less than the majority's opinion.
I think the current US model works well. Free speech, unless it's going to lead to immediate harm and such.
Anything more than that is a step into authoritarianism, and where I fear we're headed. The private sector has already tried to be said arbiters, so it's interesting to see where this ends up.