I think Christians have the right to hold whatever judgements they like about people, as we all do. However, that doesn't mean that they should be able to discriminate in the professional services they provide. In fact, these same laws protect the Christians who wish to deny services to gay people from having services denied to them.

I'm not sure I agree that LGBT folks are getting "massive support" from governments more than other groups do (for instance, churches have a very effective tax carve out which I support), but there certainly has been a push for LGBT people to be recognized as humans who have the right to exist like anyone else. Again, we can all view homosexuality (and other queer identities) in whatever way we want - but this case and the questions before civic society in general are about the provision of services. The standard we should all follow is that people are free to believe what they want (and suffer the social consequences of being known to hold those beliefs) but still be free to access the commercial services that are available to the general public without fear of being exiled for their beliefs or identity.

Edit: FWIW, I generally support the finding of Masterpiece Cakeshop, which is that the work of people doing 'creative' work is speech-y and they cannot be compelled to do creative work for a cause they oppose. However, it says that you cannot refuse service to protected classes if your creativity is not called on (i.e. Masterpiece Cakeshop does not have to design a cake, but does have to bake a cake if the design is provided). I would support a similar standard here and I expect Smith to lose unless she can argue that a commercial website for gay people requires some kind of creative act specifically about the sexuality of her clients.