Again, no. I don't, actually.
But, I'm all too familiar with this response when statists would rather avoid discussion. It means - "I got nuthin'".
No, it means exactly that.
YOur argument is that the gays should take abuse from vendors. I don't think they should have to.
Any more than I think the blacks at Woolworth should have just "eaten somewhere else".
No. That's your silly, made-up version of my argument. I don't think gays should take abuse from vendors. Neither should blacks. But that doesn't require a sledgehammer in the form of law that strips fundamental rights from business owners.