Does not agree with what? My explanation states the facts of the situation, the situation which the Court (obviously) ruled unconstitutional. My point was, the amendment didn't "authorize" discrimination, which is what you had claimed. The amendment only forbid sexual-orientation anti-discrimination laws. *That's* what the Court didn't approve of--the forbidding (via amendment) of laws which nobody was even required to pass in the first place.
My state doesn't have sexual-orientation anti-discrimination laws. Am I therefore "authorized" to do something that is normally forbidden?
The Supreme Court doesn't declare laws unconstitutional just because they don't do anything or are unnecessary. They declared this law unconstitutional, though, so they obviously don't agree with your conclusion that businesses have the absolute right to discriminate against gays in hiring and renting.