A person's right to accept or not accept something that is personal truth and not based on grounded facts is essential to the rights of any free society.

Most people find pedophilia abhorrent, myself included. Does a deviant have the 'right' to dispute it? No, because we know it is harmful to children. It is a fact. There is solid medical and psychological evidence to back up the assertion that children having sex with adults is not only morally (a personal truth) repulsive, but physically harmful.

Now, if Joe and Joe or Karen and Karen are over 18 and want to rub swords or scissor clams, is that physically harmful? Well, aside from anal prolapse and the dangers of Doc Martins to the female ankle, not really. That said, it's a personal truth. "I'm gay." may be biology, may be psychology. My right to condone it, or not agree with it does not lie in its evident harm to society! Unlike the aforementioned deviance which creates a litany of disturbing issues and problems that I get nauseated just thinking about.

And this can be further surmised in a far less controversial set of examples. Speeding versus driving in the left lan. While there are some indirect dangers of the latter, the direct dangers are marginal. However, speeding, especially excessive exhibition of speed, endanger innocent lives. And like child rape, it has a direct effect on parties who have no way, other than the laws and the enforcement thereof, of defending against its severe consequences.

My point, you cannot apply LGBT or religious ideas to societal mores that is deemed acceptable by some, unacceptable by others. Like the dipshit in the left lane, the LGBT idgits can be dangerous (but not as dangersous as the cockwad going 110 on a freeway) and they are slowing down the progression of society as a whole. Ergo, my right to give them the bird as I pass on the right is inherently within the bounds of free speech and the unwritten, but acceptable social code.