In the sense of the Constitutional criteria of race or something that one is "born" with and it is inescapable (by natural means), no I don't believe homosexuals should be a "protected class" such as race because there is NO concrete evidence, in fact there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary, that homosexuals are "born" that way and that there is an inescapable state that should become "protected". This clip, whether religious or not, shows that homosexuality is indeed "escapable" and that is the point! It is a choice. So, where does it end? Should bestiality become a protected "right” because I think that I should be able to practice and have protected my "choice" to have sex with animals? Should NAMBLA be protected in their "view" or desire to sleep with young children? I think not! It is a matter of do we want to "protect" sexual choices and preferences as opposed to something that cannot be altered (naturally) such as gender or race!
I don't know if there should ultimately be any protected classes in our system. The argument is that classes need these protection until such a time that the barriers that bias imposes are ground down by public policy and we live in a not racist sexist, biased society. I fully accept that government officials should never act in a biased way toward a class of people and that institutions that receive government money should not act with bias toward any class of people that would otherwise appropriately receive services from those people. I have a much harder time with the idea that a cake decorator is required by law to make a cake for a gay couple's wedding if they don't want to. Criminalization of personal biases seems to be basically un-American to me. Of course some homosexuality is a decision, the ancient greeks proved that. Homosexuality, namely mentor relations of a sexual nature between boys and men was the norm in their culture, it's not today, obviously a cultural not genetic relation. I am willing to see if some homosexuality is originates from a non cultural or personal choice origin. Science is slow and we haven't been good at it for very long. Bigotry toward homosexuals is wrong if you pretend to be a Christian or a Patriot. Persuit of happyness seems to me to include letting consenting adults do whatever they like as long as it isn't harming others. Christian based bigotry toward homosexuality is something I don't really want to get into aside from I am pretty confident how Christ would treat homosexuals regardless of weather he thought they were on the right path or not. Homosexuals are pretty much indifferentiable from all other people. Bigotry against them, if you believe that people should be allowed to follow their own happiness and that all people should be treated with dignity and respect, is stupid and wrong. Being stupid and wrong is a right that we as americans have, I guess it's part of the cost/benefit of freedom.
You are right about bigotry, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or other; it should not be practiced regardless of religious or non-religious convictions. I think your point about the cake decorator is spot on (even though many on the current "progressive persuasion of thought" would disagree with you. As to pursuit of happiness, happiness can be pursued within reason. There is freedom "with responsibility" as opposed to freedom "without regard to consequence to society at large" which is why we have the "rule of law" in our nation (thank God). Otherwise, we would have chaos. As to the way Jesus would treat folks who are practicing homosexual behavior, I believe that the case of the woman caught in adultery would be fitting (John 8:1-10). He did not condemn her, but he did not just "tolerate" or excuse her behavior. Through His compassion, and righteous judgment, she turned away from the behavior because it was "wrong in the sight of Jesus". Many are confused today about this issue. Yes, and everyone should be treated with dignity and respect - well stated!