I guess the difference for me was the purpose.
If they'd just been refused service for cupcakes or a potted plant, I think I'd be more sympathetic to the majority's view. But this was for weddings. I'd be willing to wager that they "couples" involved here had at least a decent idea that the florist and bakery in question might refuse to provide wedding ceremony props for a gay couple and that is precisely why those businesses were chosen. And why the need for the products was expressed fully.
I think that's what makes my butt start to itch. Last week I had a EE buddy of mine say, "You know, I really don't give a damn what other people do or who they do it with. I'm just sick of having it shoved in my face all the time." The attempt to force everyone to embrace homosexuality as "normal" is doomed to fail. It isn't "normal" in any rational sense of the word (affecting at best estimates < 1.75% of the population). Accepting a "same-sex wedding" as normal is not something I think the majority of Americans (and as we've seen, at least two private business owners) will ever think of as "normal." I don't think they should be punished for that.
FWIW.
