The remaining arguments fall along the following lines.
(1) Because it is discrimination.
Why is it wrong to deny a homosexual service, when a bank can deny a porn star service simply for his or her chosen profession? After all, why should we discriminate against he or she just because they used the gifts with which they were born to make a living? For that matter, why can we arrest a topless woman in a public place?
...the counter is ...
(2) Because the majority decided that some sexual behavior is acceptable and others are not.
Fine. I am all for majority rule, but the Surpreme Court overruled state laws established by a majority vote. In some cases, a direct majority vote by the general population.
...which bring us to the argument...
(3) Sexual orientation is not a behavior.
Why is it considered a behavior when a hetrosexual man is promicuous but a genetic predisposition when we talk about homosexuality?
...which brings us to the final argument...
(4) Because a business does not have the same rights as an individual.
The Supreme Court has consistently supported the notion of corporate personhold, which gives a corporation as a group of people many of the same constitutional protections that an individual has.
...which brings us to the final resort...
(4) Name calling. The "just because" argument.
Sorry folks. The majority may be swinging to your side (just barely and only in the last year) on this issue, but the logic fails.
.
.
.
...and those of you throwing around terms like "haters" are obviously unable to engage in an intelligent debate...