That is why we have a constitution, a judiciary and checks and balances - while democracy is generally a good thing, we also understand that tyranny of the majority is a possibility. So not only would that violate the first amendment, it would surely violate due process rights.

Well we have the first Amendment that says we are free to associate, which means we are also free to not associate. Just like you cannot be forced to speech. Guess we forgot about that part though.

You are now disenfranchising a segment of society from various social and economic interaction. That generally doesn't end well. No allowing someone in to a school because of their race directly harms their life opportunities.

Social and economic interactions are based on voluntary interaction not forced interaction, making someone interact with another against their will is the same infringement as preventing someone from interacting with someone. None of those things are directly harming someone, they are free to find another service that fits their needs. If there is money to be made than someone will offer their service.

So we agree on the 14th and its requirements for due process and equal protection?

Sure, you would like them not to. But the point is nothing in the consitution prevents them from it - in fact the 10th amendment specifically confers this ability on to them; likewise the full faith and credit clause raises national questions.

Which is the point the constitution is a contract between the States and the Federal government giving them specific powers. I was using the Gay marriage example simply to point out when you let Government get involved in any aspect of society that is supposed to be left to the people you end up with situations that group people instead of seeing them as individuals and causes distracting controversy. The 10th amendment left those issues to the States so we could live in a country where different ideas were tried among the States and people were free to move to States if they felt their views were not matched in their current ones also referred to as "the laboratories of democracy". When you nationalize issues instead of letting States decide people then have no freedom to leave to another State that best reflects their views. This is why many people are for States rights, we have a national government that is only supposed to focus on a few specific issues (mainly foreign policy) and the people of the States can decide what kind of government they want to live under. I will admit that the 14th made this murky in that originally the States were not subject to the constitution in the same way meaning that it was a restriction mainly on the Federal Government while the States were considered sovereign entities who willfully gave some specific powers to the general government.