Separate seating at a wedding

Don't have the knowledge of fashion and clothing?

I didn't understand. What kind of clothes and shoes?

B ”H It cannot be said that joy resides in the same room as men and women.
The clothing has become lighter because today men and women are accustomed to being together.

Well, then you see that this is a matter of accepted norms and not of rigid halakhic law. This reminds me of what is quoted from the Hatz who was asked about the order of reciting Kaddish among mourners, and he gave some instruction. They told him that the Maga said the opposite, and he replied that each one has his own lottery (meaning that he himself drew a lottery just as the Maga did, because there is really no halakhic answer).

I don't understand.. The B&H (and the B&S) believe that this is the halacha and the Beshub believes that this is the halacha.. What is a rigid halacha?! Do all opinions agree on the same thing?! When two poskim believe differently, is it a custom? You yourself call it a directive.. (For the sake of directives, this is halacha..)

The clothing itself teaches you that these are not differences of opinion but accepted practice and norms. That is why I wrote that this is not a rigid halakhah. If the hach were to live in the place of the clothing, he might say the same. It is not like any other halakhic dispute that does not depend on place and time. The norms of modesty by their very nature are a function of society and place (it is clear that a Haredi in a mixed setting goes through a different experience than a modern religious person), and therefore even if a halakhah is established in relation to such a situation, it is a halakhah that reflects norms and not a halakhah that can be learned from for another place and time. That is what I called a non-rigid halakhah or not a rigid halakhah. For example, if there is a place where it is customary to go in shorts, then it is permissible to pray in such shorts, and in a place where it is not, then it is not. The result will be a halakhah, but if I am debating this question in another place, then the opinions of poskim from two such different contexts will not be relevant.

A. If there are women there who are not modestly dressed, is there no obligation to separate?
B. What the Hatz and Maja ordered was precisely in their place, but in another place they would rule differently? (Didn't the Maja say this in all places?)
C. What is meant (explanation of the Hatz) by drawing lots?
Thank you very much for your consideration.

A. No more than on the street. This is an impossible law and not a premeditated one. Of course, I dance.
B-C. In the Maga and the Hatza, this is not a question that depends on the place at all, but a non-halakhic question. What is premeditated is that there is no halakhic answer to this, but the questioner expects a reply (this happens a lot), and then the rabbi simply draws a lottery, meaning we just throw out a reply (as if to make sure that the answer is correct in order to end the discussion on a lower line). But because the questioner expects a halakhic answer, the rabbi does not reveal to him that the reply is just a lottery, but answers him with a serious face as if it is the result of a thorough halakhic investigation. I remembered in this case that he is demonstrating a response to non-halakhic questions. This has nothing to do with conclusions about other places. Here it is not correct to draw a conclusion about any place or any case. This is just a lottery (= the lottery).

Forgive me for digging into the subject. It just touches me.
If there is a guest whose street and surroundings do not walk in a way that would lead to a wedding (whose street is more modest), then must a partition be made for him because otherwise I am tripping him up?

No. You don't have to. He also enters the fence. It's impossible and not intended.