From the article: "Christian activist Gregory S. Baylor... says he supports policies that protect people from discrimination based on race and gender. But he draws a distinction that infuriates gay rights activists when he argues that sexual[ity] is different ..."
The difference is that homosexuality is not an "identity," it's an array of abnormal high-risk behaviors. People who practice these behaviors, and people who advocate or even celebrate them (whether they call themselves "gay" or "straight" is irrelevant) should not use tax-funded institutions to impose "sensitivity sessions" or "diversty treaining" on fellow citizens who find such behaviors objectionable.
Similarly, people who engage in homosexual activity should not be required to enroll in programs of "Biblical morality" or "reparative therapy."
Those who draw attention to themselves on the basis of their sexual OR religious practices should not be verbally abused or threatened; but neither should any of them insist on immunity from adverse comment or criticism.
I can go along with that for sure! The First Amendment is supposed to work just as well for both sides of an argument...
until the thought police get into the action and censor the dissenting pov.