People have the right to think or feel the way they want to- but that in itself doesn't give them the right to impose their thinking or feeling on another person.
Just because someone who thinks s/he thinks it's Christian to think that all gays are destined to end up in a flaming hell doesn't give them the right to impose that point of view on people who do not agree with that.
Agreed, but...by the same token, do you have a right to impose acceptance of your lifestyle on those who disagree with it, so long as they aren't breaking the law or directly harming you physically/economically?
And here, I already know the logical counterpoint is that passive bigotry is still bigotry. But at what point do you draw the line between disagreement and bigotry?
I'll take NEPAT160's example. By all accounts, I don't believe he has broken any laws. Now his personal POVs may make him an unpleasant person to gays and anyone who doesn't like disagreeable people. Is it then right to call him a bigot (again, as long as he's not breaking the law or harming anyone directly), on the basis that he's an intolerant person, while you yourself are intolerant of his in-acceptance of your POV?
One hypothetical that was discussed was what would his reaction be if his son told him he was gay. Based on his replies, it sounded like he would still try to love his son as best he can, without accepting his son's lifestyle. Now certainly, that conditional acceptance would cause pain to his son. And the whole situation would be much happier off if NEPAT160 just changed his mindset and 'got ok' with the gay lifestyle. But lets say's he's unable to change himself to that extent since his beliefs are so strong. The compromise he's made is that he's still loving his son (perhaps to a slightly lesser degree?). Now, does the fact that he came halfway but not fully towards accepting a gay person's lifestyle still make him a bigot, and hence a legitimate target for scorn? And I'm not accusing you of this. But do you see that if you answer 'yes' to that question, you yourself are as intolerant his what you claim NEPAT160 to be?
You can strong-arm someone into doing the right thing as defined by society (by way of law enforcement), but you cannot strong-arm anyone into liking or agreeing with you by painting them as intolerant, without implicating yourself equally (again, I'm not accusing you personally, I'm just making the point).