It is more economically rational to deny same-sex couples marriage status than not.

While I agree that your argument is a valid one in certain places, you are assuming in your first point that the customers of marriage organisers are by default opposed to gay marriage, and therefore these customers would be put off from using said marriage organiser. That assertion is wholly dependent on the individuals themselves and cannot therefore be used as a general argument that same-sex marriage should be denied for economic reasons. However while I agree in certain places same-sex marriages can be economically detrimental, that is the fault of those who fail to recognise them, as I shall explain later on in my argument. Firstly, to refute your first point, same-sex marriages do have the same legal standing as heterosexual marriages. In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of the Defence of Marriage Act 1996 (DOMA), defining marriage as between "one man and one woman", was unconstitutional following Windsor vs United States. As a result, same-sex couples were granted tax benefits, immigration benefits, military benefits and federal employment benefits under federal law, all providing better economic stability for same-sex couples. Then in 2014 this was expanded to include medical leave benefits. In the 38 states where gay marriage is legal, the Social Security Administration and Veterans Affairs provide full benefits, and to the other 12 states they provide limited benefits. An essential part of this argument is determining with whom Freedom of Speech applies in this situation. On the one hand you have the religious opponents of same-sex marriage, who argue it is against their religion and therefore shouldn't be allowed. On the other hand, there are the supporters of gay marriage, who argue that it should be a default freedom for anyone to marry anyone. Now you argue that same-sex marriage violates political liberalism, however I would argue the exact opposite. Liberalism is an ideology which supports freedom of the individual, however one individual's freedom cannot infringe those of another. Therefore one group's beliefs cannot limit those of another when they come into conflict. As such, same-sex marriage must be permitted in a liberal society, and cannot be limited by religious belief and conservative attitudes. In fact, denying same-sex marriage under freedom of speech or freedom of expression is to say that the rights of religious people are more valuable than those of everyone else: once again, this is categorically against liberalism as an ideology. Therefore any religion which tries to limit the rights of those in society who are not part of it, is by default in direct contradiction of liberalism, and has no right to enforce its beliefs on those by whom it is not followed. As a safe-guard against this, the First Amendment even states that the government cannot adopt an official religion or church for the several states. This begs the question, does religion have a place in 21st century society? But that is a debate for another day. Therefore it is rational for a business to be disrupted or to go bankrupt for refusing services to homosexuals based on religious beliefs, as those religious beliefs are infringing upon the rights of other individuals who may not follow or believe in the owner's beliefs. As for your point arguing that businesses have the right to provide a different service from the one advertised to people who violate the owner's conscience, that is simply not true. Under law, businesses must provide the services as advertised. If not, they will face charges of false advertising (at least), as happened last week in Ireland with a Christian baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. The USA has the same laws on false advertising as the UK. What's more, to deny a customer service for being homosexual is an abridgement to the Fourteenth Amendment under the Equal Protection Clause (the same amendment which Brown vs. Board of Education found to protect against discrimination in schools). So to conclude, it is not more economically rational to refuse same-sex couples marriage than not. Aside from being in violation of business laws, the marriage business owners are denying themselves a larger market for their services. Moreover, if I owned a marriage business, there's no way I wouldn't actively advertise that we put on same-sex marriages, because if other businesses are refusing to do them, the one that accepts will be making all the money in that area. However same-sex marriage really isn't an issue of economic rationality - it's an issue of basic rights. If anything, I feel that business owners who refuse to hold same-sex marriage ceremonies will lose business from outraged customers, as happened in January this year, when a wedding planner in Florida refused a lesbian couple a marriage ceremony, and has now almost been forced out of business due to no one wanting to use her. If the business owners want to refuse people their basic human rights of union regardless of gender, which is not only unconstitutional but also a violation of liberal ideology, then they should suffer the consequences. As I said a short while earlier, that is perfectly rational in economic terms in a liberal society.