That people aren't informed by signs doesn't make it a "secret." For most of this country's existence, the idea of refusing service to homosexuals would have been regarded as "normal." It was the default condition of every business.
I can see where a sign would simply invite harassment from homosexual groups, and the history of their movement has shown that they will get dangerously violent if necessary to push their agenda.
The only reason homosexuality has been removed from the list of psychiatric disorders was because of a campaign of threats and intimidation from homosexuals against the doctors making up the American Psychiatric Association for years leading up to their 1973 decision.
Doctors were threatened if they didn't vote to remove homosexuality from the list of disorders.
I do not believe homosexuals are entitled to know that their patronage would be rejected by the business owner, because this would make such businesses the targets of intimidation campaigns. (Ala Kim Davis in Kentucky)
Homosexuals should either be cured or go back in the closet. They absolutely should not be indulged.
For most of this country's existence the idea of refusing service to people based on race or religion was regarded as "normal". This would also allow a return to that.
I can see where a sign would simply invite harassment from homosexual groups, and the history of their movement has shown that they will get dangerously violent if necessary to push their agenda.
That can work both ways. Sure posting a sign that says you don't cater to homosexuals - or blacks or Muslims or fill-in-the-blank - might cause some people not to patronize your place of business. But it might also attract customers with similar beliefs who didn't patronize you before. And it won't impact people who don't care one way or the other. And freedom of association is guaranteed.
Homosexuals should either be cured or go back in the closet. They absolutely should not be indulged.
I don't see where my idea is indulging them in any way.