Different case, but same principle. As Robert Bork said, you can't invent new rights, you can only redistribute them. When homosexuality is made a protected category, then those who object to the behavior are forced to hire them in their private businesses or allow them to reside in their privately owned property -- thus further diminishing the private property rights of the rest of us. Those rights were always assumed to include the right to exclude whomever you wish from your private property.
Thanks for posting this article, I hope Ann reads it, and thanks for the correction too, this is very troubling news.
Not too different a decision from Kelo vs. New London, now that I think about it. Both assume that private property doesn't really exist, but that the government magnanimously allows us to use some -- only so long as we do so in a way that promotes whatever they deem to be the 'public good' (paying high taxes, mainstreaming homosexuality, etc.).