Then of course, those who are not inconvenienced are not looking for reasons why they might have any ethical obligation to inconvenince themselves. They aren't gay people wanting a cake, or teenaged girls wishing to get Plan B. They may be honestly unaware of such policies.
This would be an argument for requiring business owners to state clearly who they do and don't serve at their establishment. I could get behind that. That is sound regulation, as opposed to the my-way-or-the-highway attitude of some posters in this thread.
My younger brother is gay, I assure you very strongly that this issue makes my blood boil. But I feel the response to this social problem should be social in nature. It's that simple.
You see, this has a two fold effect, if it is a successful strategy. First, of course, it disadvantages the target group - be they jews, gypsies, black people or gays. Second, it informs those who "might stray" who it is appropriate to associate with.
This is where we have a fundamental disconnect. In the most recent data I could find, directly from Gallup, twice as many people are okay with homosexuality than are okay with pornography! Really consider that datapoint. Internalize it. (Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/170789/new-record-highs-moral-acceptability.aspx) When you start threatening laws, regulations, and physical force (remember, all laws are upheld through the threat of physical force) people fight back. They hunker down. They dig their feet in. And they retaliate against the EXACT group we all want to help.
Left alone, people will watch porn and sell bicycles to homosexuals. If you really want trouble... write a law about either.