Well, the reality is that there is no test for what one is, often bisexual individuals change from having a relationship with the same gender to one with opposite gender, such as was the case with Anthony Perkins or Robert Oscar Lopez. It kind of offends the idea of people being exclusively homosexual or heterosexual.
There is no test at all beyond ones word what ideas and thoughts go thou ones head.
The concept therefore that people can be categorized differently than physical evidence would suggest based simply upon what they say or observably do is forever subject to abuse, as well as change.
The human mind after all is built to change and adapt unlike the body which has only limited adaption capabilities by comparison.
There is as there must be a very clear difference between behavior and physical form in humans. Otherwise there could be no presumption of humanity. Just because someone says their gay and will take no advantage of privileged access to the other sex does not mean they should be given such access over anyone else who simply claims they won’t take advantage.
The presumption is they can and the precaution is they shouldn’t be allowed the opportunity they don’t need to be given. If you got man parts you should not be in the lady’s bathroom.
I don’t care what you say you think inside your head. We have no way to prove either your thoughts nor that you won’t change your thoughts even if we could prove such thoughts to be genuine. All we know is that people can change their thoughts as easily as they can lie to us about their thoughts. We know this because we ourselves can do it, and presuming them equal to us in capability they must be able to do it as well.
This ultimately is why any ‘judge’ who makes a claim on the foundation of someone’s supposed thoughts or feelings as opposed to the physical reality is in fact always on unprovable ground.
It cannot be proven or dis-proven that the plaintiff are ‘gay’ nor can it be proven that the defendant was in any way effected by that fact. All that can be proven here is that the defendant doesn’t offer a service the plaintiff wanted on the grounds that it is offensive to them.
Perhaps you should ask Ford to produce a line of cars adored with racist remarks. Would the government condemn ford for failure to offer that product as well? The fact that it took the plaintiff a few days to recognize the offence is of no consequence, as it would no doubt take ford several day before their management realized what was going on as well.