Some fun facts about this case.

There was no web design business. There was no gay client asking for a super gay wedding website. The supposed client didn't even know about the case and is not gay.

The supreme court took on a hypothetical case and used it to make gays second class citizens.

I think this quote sums up how batshit this scotus is via David S. Bernstein:

A little weird tho that a private business CAN choose to DENY a customer because he/she is a member of a protected class, but a private university CANNOT choose to ACCEPT a customer because he/she is a member of a protected class.

So it's now legal to have a "WHITES ONLY" or a "STRAIGHTS ONLY" sign on your door?

More freedumb for "religious" heretics who promote brain-dead interpretations of scripture, actually.

SCOTUS continues SCOTUSing.

Ultimately, my thoughts are a bit mixed, and it really comes down to just how much leeway is given to businesses. I can understand an argument that a web site is a sufficiently creative and expressive work such that the government mandating a business take on a client is essentially compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment, and a secondary benefit is it being made abundantly clear that a gay baker wouldn't ever have to create a "Gays are groomers" cake or anything like that. I think the real question, and something I haven't seen much information on yet, is exactly where that line is. I'd like to think that a business owner simply refusing basic service because a customer is gay would still be something that a state can prohibit, and if not, I don't see how that doesn't opening up some legal room for "Whites only (because Jesus told me that in a dream)" signs - essentially legalizing any form of discrimination so long as it's hidden under the veil of religion. I'd imagine the Court really doesn't want to get into the business of deciding what a legitimate religion is.