Because hate crimes are not the only unit of measure for homophobia and racism.

It would make sense that a more racist/homophobic population would have proportionally more hate motivated crimes, would it not? 

At what point are they really following their beleifs and at what point is it just descriminating against people so they can look like they are following? How far does that business deny sevice? If they only serve members of their own religious comunity who are holding to a certain standard, I'd agree, but at that point the buisiness would probably be clearly advertised as such, but if they are willing to serve many people who don't follow their strict religious standards and only draw the line at homosexuals, I think it's fine for them to be sued.  Real and through religious convictions are very different from "lets bash the gays or deny them service to feel closer to god"

Yes, but is it the only unit of measure? Also, do all 50 states in the US have the same definition and interpretation of what constitutes a hate crime? Do the number of hate crimes reported represent the actual number of hate crimes that occurred?

Certainly not the only way to measure the amount of racism/homophobia, but I think it is probably the best way we can measure it. It measures how many extremely hateful people there are that they'd commit crimes due to their hate. As for the criteria of the statistics it was the FBI who collected the information, not the state governments. Same with the Canadian statistics, it was their national statistics agency which collected the information. We can argue that the stastics might not be fully accurate, but that still puts them in the same order of magntitude 2/10,000 (for U.S) and 4/10,000 (for Canada.) Even if the United States missed out on one case for every one case with respect to Canada's stasticis agency, that would just put it at the same proportions as Canada. 

Right, but in a roundabout way it means that private discrimination is allowed, because that means a government entity can't force a business to serve LGBT+ individuals if they object on religious rounds, because it is the governmental entity (the police, etc) that would force compliance with non-discrimination if the issue was pressed.

You should be allowed to reject anyone service based on their attitude or if they make you feel unsafe and etc. Not based on who they are.

not if those places don't consider crimes against people because they are gay "hate crimes" Why not also look at how protected or decriminated gays are under the law. If there is equal protection under the law, vs a severe lacking of protections in housing, employment etc.

But we don't know how large the discrepancy is, so we shouldn't just assume the US miss out one one case for every one case in Canada. There are a lot of variables that need to be put into account such as cross state variation in hate crime laws, cross state variation in hate crime definitions, uneven collection, under reporting, difference in hate crime definitions between federal and state levels, proportion of the amount of hate crime prevention to the amount of hate crimes, etc.

It is easy to divide a number by another number and call it a day. However, you need to look into how and why did we get these numbers.

The point is, they are not denying service because the other person is a sinner, they are denying it because they believe if they partake in the ceremony it is a sin (immoral) on their own personal part as well. A more extreme analogy of this, which isn't exactly the same thing (no analogies are), is whether or not a doctor will give an abortion after a certain trimester in states where such abortions are legal. Many doctors will refuse to give an abortion after say the first trimester, not because it is illegal in their state, but because they don't want to morally. Should these doctors be forced to treat all pregnant woman the same, and enact the abortion? Should they lose their license if they refuse? Another more close to the point analogy is the question of whether or not a minister will perform a gay wedding or not is discrimination. Do you think all ordained ministers should perform gay weddings? If not, then why should all wedding cake producers make wedding cakes for gay weddings? Both entities are paid to perform a task, even if it is only a tip in the minster's case. Should all church buildings be willing to have gay wedding in them as well? 

In my opinion things like this hurt the LGBT movement. They make it harder for LGBT to be accepted, and it creates a mentality of us vs. them filled with resent on the religious persons end and resent on the non-heterosexual person's end.