Like I said, it seems like splitting hairs.  The terms may be different, but essentially they mean the same thing.

Well, to socialists the difference is huge, but I can understand that the average person probably doesn't really feel like spending the time to dig through all the confusion.

You should be able to deny anyone in my opinion for service as long as you own it. Not that it is right, but part of freedom of speech in my opinion. Which is what a lot of conservatives believe like Ron Paul. Also, a lot of republicans don't like funding services or social programs. Doesn't mean they are going to outlaw abortions. Republicans had many oppurtunties to do this, but they won't do it.

They've tried to outlaw abortions.  They've tried many times and they'll keep trying.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/01/14-states-have-passed-laws-making-it-harder-to-get-an-abortion-already-this-year/

As for denying service, whether or not that's freedom of speech is irrelevant to this conversation.  You're saying that republicans aren't actually acting on these things, but they are, and that's an example of it.

I don't think it's a matter of confusion, it's simple that language changes over time and space.  What the term means in a certain area or circle can mean something different than it means in another, and they can both be valid.  As long as the target audience in each case understands the intention, the distinction doesn't really matter.

This is just Trump avoiding income taxes again, nothing to see here.

I didn't read the whole article, but it seems that they are making it harder, but not impossible. One of the ways I assume is cutting funding. Which is more of a tax issue and Republicans don't like social policies.  I'll read the article thoroughly tomorrow morning when I get time (about to go to sleep).

The denying service was response towards gays. I don't care if a private company wants to deny me or any group service because it's their company. Now if it is publicy own I will agree with you because they pay their fair share. However, I can show you examples later tomorrow on Republicans not banning gay mariage or banning abortions. 

http://rare.us/story/here-are-5-conservatives-who-supported-gay-marriage-before-hillary-clinton/ Here is an example of conservatives supporting gay marriage even before Hillary did.

They are making it harder, because they can't make it impossible.  Roe v Wade means they can't outright outlaw it, so they put a lot of restrictions.  The same way democrats tried to make a bill holding gun manufacturers legally liable for shootings as a roundabout way to evade the second ammendment. Cutting funding is not one of them, because public funding is not used to fund abortions (to the best of my knowledge).  

As for denying service, whether or not it's right is still irrelevant.  The point is that conservatives are not merely claiming to not like gays and abortion, like you said.  They are actually taking actions based on these positions.  

I'm sure you can show me some examples of conservatives who do not do that.  Not all conservatives are alike, and I never said they were.  But, the fact remains that there are a lot of them who follow through on their anti-gay and anti-abortion rhetoric.

What? Seriously. What?

You do understand these two nouns denote two completely different forms of action, right?

Why do people feel like they can do whatever they want and claim it's freedom of speech?

1) Some of Texas laws have been struck down by the Supreme Court.  Republicans claim they want to make it safe but it was really just a way to close a decent amount of abortion clinics while only a few could remain.  So if they can't outright ban it then republicans will make it as hard as possible to get one.

"Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion, which was joined in full by Kennedy. Breyer wrote that despite arguments that the restrictions were designed to protect women's health, the reality is that they merely amounted to burdening women who seek abortions.
"There was no significant health-related problem that the new law helped to cure," Breyer wrote. "We agree with the District Court that the surgical-center requirement, like the admitting-privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an "undue burden" on their constitutional right to do so."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/27/politics/supreme-court-abortion-texas/

2) So you are saying that people who own their own business can straight up deny service to someone and tell them to get out because they are gay or black or any other issue?  Sure people have been doing this in certain ways but usually few to no one just outright says why they can't provide them service.  So you want to return to the good old days when shops used to have signs on the windows saying no blacks or no mexicans?