I believe in LGBT quality just as much as I believe in religious freedom and all of its protections.
First and Foremost we must shield people from lawsuits should they cite sincerely held believes
and reasonable alternative accommodations exist. Whether that be an alternative wedding clerk on standby or church which may bless the ceremony within X amount of miles, cake shop or otherwise. We can have Legal gay marriage nationwide and simultaneously protect businesses, churches and private citizens from overwhelming lawsuits of bloating our court systems.
For example I am LGBTQQIA and I am also an ordained minister and deeply spiritual always putting God first. I Believe in civil protection equality (Marriage itself should have probably never been in the jurisdiction of government gay or straight beyond legal contract execution, but I Digress) As well as religious freedom liberty and protection. I would never equate gay marriage with the following example but I want to draw perspective on religious freedom, right of refusal, absence of hate and lawsuits in the following;
In many states a very young minor may marry a 105 year old should the parent sign and permit, I deeply disagree with this. Should I be forced to perform the wedding because I am a legally and religiously ordained minister or face an enormous lawsuit? No.
Do I think such practice should be legal? No, and I would introduce a bill banning this but that's not the point of the example.
Do I go home thinking about how much I "Hate" them? No.
This is not a zero sum issue nor are most things in life as much as the establishment elite might like you to think they are to further deflect and polarize.
I do believe in Protection from discrimination pertaining to housing, employment and also believe in religious freedom specific to the sanctioned 501 c3 institutions specific to institutional character defining roles. If the sincerely held belief practiced states an opposition to same sex marriage and it is well Documented prior to any incident, and such belief is respected 1) EQUAL WEIGHTED to all other institutional beliefs, that should be their right. If its not equal weighted than the Discrimination practice lies in the selectively abiding text. 2) If the person's sexual orientation or gender identity has no implied corralation in the role in which they are applying for and the identity of the Institution such discrimination should be examined. For example it would be violating my own and the Catholic Church sincerely held believes if I applied to be a sex education teacher at a catholic high school. However if I was their account, there is no feasible correlation between my role and the Institution's implied identy. With that said, like the democratics I am against shielding religious institutions accross the board from discrimination lawsuits but like the republicans, should all beliefs be equally practiced and weighted In accordance to their own doctrine they should be free to hire as they choose. Should their doctine however have a stance against gluttony for example as well as same sex marriage arguably equated in citation of their own doctrine and such person be hired but not the LGBT one, I would leave that to a court to decide if such text is disproportionately at that point discriminating on one and not the other.