Let me fix that for you:

Or maybe most COMPANIES don't want to spend a lot of time and money supporting the 1% of users out there that don't have or disable JavaScript.

There, fixed. And to be honest; I can't say I blame them.

Starting from reason one "We liked it better" there is nothing objective about this comparison.

"Playing CentOS vs RHEL just feels like a big fat kludge and tells you there's something broken about the distro.)"
Why is that ? "just feels" i think you kind of nailed the sentiment there, "just feels". There isn't much of a technical difference between RHEL and Fedora besides that Fedora focuses on bleeding edge and RHEL on stability.

"Unlike Debian stable, and like Fedora, it's updated fairly frequently so we get a decent rate of package updates for infrastructure..."
Use RHEL/CentOs.

"...unlike Fedora, it's not so bleeding edge that things die all the time (SELinux breaking everything, yay!)"
Again use RHEL/CentOs. Besides Ubuntu updates have their fair share of screw ups too or did we already forget about the OpenSSL fiasco *COUGH* http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/13/1533212 *COUGH* ?

" ...and Canonical actually puts out security updates for a decent amount of time."
Have you seen the CentOs roadmap ? http://dag.wieers.com/blog/files/centos-intro-1.3-en.png So that means support until 2014. Thats one year longer then Ubuntu LTS, which goes to 2013 !!

I can't begin to phantom why this post is +5 informative.