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

Thank you once more for this debate. To contend your first point, we are leaving out one major issue here, without which I would have to agree with you: people aren't born vegetarian/vegan, but they are born homosexual and can't help it. As such, the state MUST defend the rights of same-sex couples in this area, since these businesses are discriminating against them for the customers' natures. This is akin to not serving black people or Hispanics because of their race - their race is not something they can help. [Just as an aside, I included my challenge of P1 in my other arguments, as I felt the challenges also covered that point] You tell me that I strengthen your argument when I say it is economically irrational not to serve same-sex couples because the business owners will refer them to another business. Well for this we have to assume that the business owner isn't actually against same-sex marriage, and therefore won't even refer them to someone else out of personal disapproval. But even aside from that, your argument here falls short. According to you, the same-sex couple will get served anyway if they are referred elsewhere, and therefore the economy isn't losing out as a whole because they are still going to end up paying for a ceremony. Therefore it is not economically irrational for anyone except the business who turned them away. I need not make this conclusion long, because I feel it is fairly clear that same-sex marriage is not economically irrational, but rather the opposite. How could a new market opening for businesses be construed as irrational in economic terms? If we look at this argument solely with regards to rationality, then my argument stands, because there can be nothing more economically irrational than not serving your customers. However, while do agree to a certain extent with some of my opponent's arguments, this is only when I completely put aside how unacceptable it would be not to serve same-sex couples based on their sexuality, and the business owners' religion. By my opponent's argument and belief in liberalism, it should follow that he believes fundamentalist Muslims should be able to kill "infidel" and force women in the USA and Western world to wear burkas and hijabs because not doing so would be a violation of their conscience. Would my opponent agree that a Muslim business owner can refuse a Jew or Christian service, because they don't agree with their beliefs or lifestyle? I'm sorry, but that just isn't how liberalism works. We live in a secular society, where religious beliefs come after human nature and basic human and civil rights. There is no protection within the Constitution of the rights of religious people to refuse service to same-sex couples. The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - the USA is an inherently secular society. This clause in the Constitution guarantees the separation of Church and State, in my belief, for reasons such as this - not same-sex marriage specifically, but rather to strike down religion when human rights come into conflict with religion. Instead, refusing service to the LGBT community is in abridgement of the Fifth Amendment. So to conclude, aside from being against political liberalism, basic freedom of expression and speech and just generally discriminatory and homophobic, it is undoubtedly economically irrational to refuse service to same-sex couples for the reasons I have argued above. There is nothing rational about rejecting a bigger market as a business owner, which will result in more money going into the economy. It's really that simple.