The recent Supreme Court case

The supreme court argued a storeowner can refuse to serve someone for being gay.

This to me sounds like a storeowner refusing to serve someone for being unvaccinated.

The right should treat gay people the same way they treat unvaccinated people (and vice versa).

Statement: If you are allowed to deny business to someone for being gay, your ALSO allowed to deny business to someone for being unvaccinated.

I think the converse, inverse, and contrapositive should apply equally.

Liberals think the converse and inverse shouldn't apply because they argue that the unvaccinated are putting other people at risk.  To me, this barely makes sense because unvaccinated people are causing almost no vaccinated and boosted people to even get COVID, let alone die from the disease.

You need a little bit of risk to maintain liberty.  Those willing to trade liberty for safety deserve neither and would lose both.

Everyone should be treated well, most people will agree. I think the debate is over what people should have the right to do, not what people should do. 

I am not really in favor of such culture. Technically, in capitalism, you have a right to not do buisness with a certain group that you dont want to do buisness with. But such right is simply taken too far sometimes. People depend upon stores to live. Thats where they buy food. When right of a buisness becomes more important than right of a people to live, is when society has a problem.

I simply dont see the point of denying services to people you disagree with.

They can refuse to serve certain products, such as a webpage promoting a gay wedding. They cannot refuse service on the basis of the customer being gay.

False equivalence fallacy on your part. 

Very true