Y’know, I’d never thought about the legal angle before. I think you’re right. Thank you for giving me another perspective to consider. I don’t think it will help much to diffuse things in the heat of the moment, but it’s certainly something to bring up in planning discussions with other facilitators.
Fascinating example! Definitely one where a reasonable person can “see it both ways.”
The only compromise I can think of is to hold two separate ceremonies (or alternate month by month) so as to accommodate everyone, or at least to give it the best possibility. Certainly advance warning would be vital.
A vaguely similar example is of news magazines printing photographs of war casualties. If Time Magazine (for instance) does this, they get tons of letters for posting disturbing images that are not appropriate for all readers…but if they don’t, they’re “sanitizing” warfare and neglecting their full duty as journalists. Both sides are right (and, alas, also both sides are wrong!)
I’m a hellishly sensitive arachnophobe, and I really hate it when Scientific American or National Geographic publishes pictures of spidies. Ick ick. But since my sensitivity is relatively rare, and there is a very valid scientific purpose to such articles, I’m willing to accept the personal discomfort.
But…the ban of peanuts in air travel: both sides have some validity. Yes, peanut dust can cause allergies in some people; but no, we shouldn’t all make sacrifices for a very small minority. (Also slippery slope. What if I brought my own peanuts? What if I ate a peanut bar in the airport terminal?)
ETA: the old “Star Trek Transporter” debate. Is it just transportation, or does it murder the person who transports? Any one of us, I think, should be able to argue this, mostly persuasively, on either side of the issue. Both sides are right…because it’s an abstract philosophical question with no actual observational evidence. (Other than, y’know, Star Trek episodes.)
Unfortunately, in this context, that won’t work. These are annual events, and at least the main ritual is intended to be a time for the entire community to come together in one place at one time. It would be like having two New Year’s Eve ball drops. One or the other is going to feel cheated out of the “real” experience.
It does tend to be how it’s handled in more frequent, local Circles, though. There, the ground rules are generally laid out, the group considers themselves private or quasi-private, and people who are uncomfortable can find a different group.
IIRC, Jeff Foxworthy does a bit in his stand-up routine where he’s watching TV and his wife tells him we’re out of toilet paper.
The gag is, he call-and-responses with the men in the audience (who agree: she’s relaying useful information, so he can grab a roll of toilet paper the next time he’s planning to use the facilities), and with the women in the audience: no, you moron; she’s only saying that so you’ll get up right now and replace the toilet paper.
So either defending yourself when a bigger nation invades is wrong … or invading a smaller nation just because you want some more land is right? Now if you’d pick the Continuation War then I’d get it because that one is a lot more ambiguous when it comes to who is right and who is wrong, but the Winter War is as clear-cut example of one side being wrong and the other right as I can think of. 
YOU see it that way and I see it that way, but there really IS a squishy middle that thinks abortion…
- Is evil, but probably ought to be legal
- Ought to be legal, but should have a lot more restrictions
- Is morally okay, but women who get them are rather repulsive
- Is morally fine most of the time, but morally abhorrent some of the time
- Is morally abhorrent most of the time, but okay some of the time.
- Is morally fine, but just a bit troubling (couldn’t we pass out more pills and Trojans to make this less common?)
- Is evil, but nobody should impose their views on others
- Any number of other positions
Many people DO see viable middle ground, even if you and I (from opposite sides) don’t.