The justices settled a question left open in 2018: whether businesses open to the public and engaged in expression may refuse to serve customers based on religious convictions.
So, the judgement appears to make this distinction:
It’s still illegal to refuse to serve people from a protected class. One cannot refuse to serve gay people, for example.
One cannot be compelled to perform work which contradicts personal beliefs. For example, a website designer cannot be compelled to make an anti-gay website for a Muslim. While the Muslim is following their religious beliefs, and religion is a protected class, this ruling permits one to refuse to make the website.
I’m okay with this. I’m not sure how this is materially different to Masterpiece v. Colorado.
So, the judgement appears to make this distinction:
It’s still illegal to refuse to serve people from a protected class. One cannot refuse to serve gay people, for example.
One cannot be compelled to perform work which contradicts personal beliefs. For example, a website designer cannot be compelled to make an anti-gay website for a Muslim. While the Muslim is following their religious beliefs, and religion is a protected class, this ruling permits one to refuse to make the website.
I’m okay with this. I’m not sure how this is materially different to Masterpiece v. Colorado.
You shouldn’t be ok with this. It is in fact no longer illegal to not serve people from a protected class.