Ambrose Bierce rendered the most telling definition of a bigot:
"one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"
Is that “bigotry?” To teach welcoming of the person, to command respect for their dignity, while at the same time adhering to the truth as their lights permit them to see truth?
To call that approach, “Bigotry,” is to invoke a Humpty Dumptidian power to make words mean what YOU say they mean, rather than what they are known to mean by common acceptance and usage.
Archie Bunker, of course, was a bigot, and, in a humorous twist, so was George Jefferson. We know that there are those who do not look across the divide and see persons whose value and worth is measured in the work of the Cross, where Christ gave His life, not just for heterosexual, but for all human beings. That is what makes a bigot.
But Ambrose Bierce did get this one right.
Their opinion being different than yours might feel like a sound basis for charging them with bigotry, but only in Bierce’s definition does that make sense. They hold their opinion but not yours, after such consideration, thought and examination as they have devoted to the subject at hand. Because their opinion differs from yours, you charge “bigotry.”
One need not share their views to understand the difference between such faith-filled folk and those who drop gay men off tall buildings in Iraq, or those who force gay men in Iran to undergo – involuntarily – sex reassignment surgery so that they have a physical body resembling a woman in pertinent aspects (breasts, no testicles, penis reduction to resemble the female clitoris, and a pouch where possible for sexual contact).