What is proscribed (in some jurisdictions) is discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation". That's not behavior, that's wiring. A homosexual who enters a store with no shoes or shirt can be bounced the same as a straight man who does the same thing.
And likewise, Mr. Phillips refused service because a gay couple requested a wedding cake for "our wedding". If a straight couple had made the same request, he would have honored it. The discrimination, facially, was on the basis of who the customer was, not how he/she behaved.
Again, you are 100% wrong. First of all, at no time was the couple refused service. The court documents are clear. The baker offered to make them anything he made. But same-sex weddomg cales were simply not something he made - for anyone, regardless of sexual preference.
Again, if two straight people of the same gender came in the store to order a wedding cake for their wedding, he would have refused.
The court documents are also clear in that at no time did plaintiffs inform the baker of their sexual preference, nor did the baker ever cite sexual preference as the reason he didn't make wedding cakes for non-conventional weddings.
All of these points have been pointed out to you repeatedly, yet you continue to offer a false narrative of events. Why is that?
And as for "wiring", sexual preferences change. Humans also have a will whereas we can choose whether we want to engage in sexual activity or not. Having sex is a choice, based solely on the prefernce of an individual at any given moment. If someone wants to have gay sex, that is their decision. If they don't want to have gay sex, that is also their decisiion. And if they want to change their outlook on who they are attracted to, that is also their decision.
But then of course none of that has anything at all to do with whether a baker can be forced to make a cake against his deeply held convictions about marriage being a covenant between one man and one woman where two genders become one spiritual union.