This is an extremely fascinating situation.  One group believes strongly that it is wrong to tell other people that they're believing false religious truths.  The other group believes that it is wrong to provide cab service to homosexuals, people carrying liquor, or blind people with guide dogs.   The clash is inevitable.  (And btw it has happened before, and it will happen again and again with increasing frequency until one side wins globally...  any guesses as to which will win?)

Notice that the airport is NOT a government entity (rather a private corporation) and is therefore NOT required to provide "freedom of religion" or anything else.  If you don't like their policies, theoretically you can go work or fly somewhere else.

As Johnson so clearly puts it: "In other words, we have to let them be intolerant, or we’re intolerant."

"So many of us long for communities in which there is systemic affirmation, valuing, and nurturing of difference, and in which conformity to a narrow and restricting vision is never demanded as the price of admission to caring civil society. Our vision is the creation of communities in which we are encouraged to explore the widest range of non-exploitive, non-abusive possibilities in love, gender, desire and sex – and in the creation of new forms of constructed families without fear that this searching will potentially forfeit for us our right to be honored and valued within our communities and in the wider world. Many of us, too, across all identities, yearn for an end to repressive attempts to control our personal lives. "

Voila the "vision".      "...freedom from state regulation of our sexual lives and gender choices, identities and expression."

This raises many interesting questions...   such as the existence (or nonexistence) of a moral standard that applies to everybody, the practicality (or impracticality) of certain societal arrangements like traditional man-woman-marriage in the raising of healthy, well-adjusted children and the subsequent strength of a society, and the involvement (or non-involvement) of government in 'legislating morality' - which arrangements get legal protections and which don't.

The underlying question, though, is much more basic - Does the God of the Bible exist?   The answer to this question will watershed the others.

The recent New York Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of homosexual marriages is extremely fascinating.  Here are some excerpts from the decision.  What are your thoughts?

We hold that the New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex. Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the Legislature.

...

First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement -- in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits -- to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.

The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.

...

There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like. It is obvious that there are exceptions to this general rule -- some children who never know their fathers, or their mothers, do far better than some who grow up with parents of both sexes -- but the Legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold.

...

The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.