I totally agree with the intent of your article. I guess the argument against the restaurant example would be that they are not requiring the restaurant to inherently promote anti-LGBT views... but what if that anti-LGBT group walks in with signs or wear shirts that do promote their own views. What recourse does a restaurant have to not serve those people? That, in my view, would be at least slightly closer to the 303 scenario because the restaurant could reasonably say that if other customers see these people in their restaurant it could come across as implicitly implying they believe the same. I personally choose never to spend money at Chick-Fil-A because they donate to many anti-LGBT politicians and organizations that actively work against the LGBT community.