Sometimes the heat of the moment obscures the significance of an instant.

That might have been the case during discussion of a proposed anti-discrimination ordinance at Thursday night’s meeting of Butler city council.

The crux of the proposal is a regulation ensuring “that all persons regardless of actual or perceived race, color, sex, religion, ancestry, genetic information, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, age, mental or physical disability, use of guide or support animals and/or mechanical aids, enjoy the full benefits of citizenship and are afforded equal opportunities for employment, housing and the use of public accommodations, and to have equal access to post-secondary educational institutions.”

The Butler County chapter of PFLAG — Parents, Friends, and Family of Lesbians and Gays — first proposed the ordinance in 2011. Council rejected it, but a mass shooting in June at an Orlando, Fla., gay nightclub prompted advocates to try again.

That was three months ago. They’re still pushing for the ordinance. Council has not responded.

On the surface of it, those pushing the ordinance are getting impatient with the resistance to change; council members are wary of any new commitment of time, money, effort or other limited resource. Opponents continue to voice their worries over potential negative consequences, unintended or otherwise, for private businesses, schools and religious organizations, while the proponents say churches are exempt from the ordinance and shouldn’t worry.

But they are worried. We’ve all heard the stories of legal, even criminal repercussions for the baker who refused to make the wedding cake or the wedding photographer who refused services to a gay couple.

The most vocal opponent to the proposal, Pastor Jeff Harris of Crossroad Community, raises valid questions for which council members should have airtight answers before enacting any new rules about rights.

But here’s the instant of significance that must not be overlooked:

Harris clearly and emphatically said he is willing to sit down with supporters of the ordinance to come up with a resolution to his concerns. That doesn’t mean he supports the ordinance, he said, but he’ll have an open mind to suggestions and resolutions. “Maybe we can set a new standard for the state,” he said.

Josh Crawford, president of PFLAG, said he’s willing to do the same, admitting, “We’re not going to get anywhere if we don’t meet.”

Glory be. Settling a deeply-held difference with maturity, intelligence and a willingness to give and take. The moment is notable because it’s so refreshingly rare.

There are a few crucial observations:

- Let’s not mistakenly label it as compromise. There are deep convictions and the concept of God-given rights on both sides of this issue. Compromise doesn’t aptly describe the painstaking navigation of a middle way that accommodates everyone.

- At council meetings and on the pages of the Butler Eagle, the debate has remained respectful and issues-related. There has been no name-calling, no moral judgments, no claims of callousness.

- The more issues that pro- and anti-ordinance factions can settle beforehand, the fewer details they leave for council to deal with. And government is like water: it takes the path of least resistance. The work that gets done first and fastest is the work that takes the least amount of time and effort.

If Crawford and Harris can manage to resolve their differences and settle concerns before council takes up the proposed ordinance, then the deal already done, for all practical purposes.

Repeating Harris’ words above: “Maybe we can set a new standard for the state.”