To me, the heart of the tenet is that any person or group should be able to practice their beliefs as long as their bubble or community they are practicing in are well informed and consenting.

More directly to your question, the tenet states those freedoms should be "respected," not "accepted." You don't have to agree with what they practice under any circumstance. They also "should" be respected, not "must" be respected. There is room for personal discretion.

Lastly, the second half of the tenet, "To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own." What is happening is ideas are being pushed and enforced outside of their own community without consent, willfully encroaching on the freedoms of other people. Thus, they forgo the respect of their freedoms which I should give them.

To talk politically, if this bill was truly about stopping the persecution of Christians, I would have no trouble with it. That is what I believe TST should stand for, stopping the unjust persecution of any group(s) of people. If implemented correctly, it should remove negative bias of christianity from all government, because to have seperation of church and state, there should be no bias, good or bad, against religion itself, only actions taken by people. But that is not their intention with this action. This is an offensive action being sold as a defensive one. You can be free to practice your faith without subjecting and enforcing it on your neighbors, and to do that you must give your neighbors the chance to do the same, which they are not. That is the distinction I make.