There are plenty of recent examples of the SCOTUS inappropriately making up new religious rights. But this is not one of them. The court even pointed out that their decision could be used against religious expression.

For example, if a Christian asked an atheist to design a "He gets us" ad, then previously the atheist might have violated the law if he refused (since religion is a protected class). According to the new SCOTUS ruling, the atheist cannot be punished for refusing.

This ruling was not based on religion.

Basically, if your job involves messaging, then you can refuse to produce messages you don't agree with. It doesn't necessarily have to do with religion.

For example, suppose a Russian hired you to make a pro-Putin website. You can refuse, even if there is a state law barring discrimination by national origin.

This only applies to messaging. If the same Russian wanted to eat at your restaurant or stay in your hotel, you cannot refuse on the basis of his ethnicity.

No digging required, it's all on the surface.

Even the headline to the original article said the balloon did not collect information. It never said the balloon did not carry surveillance equipment, you incorrectly assumed that.

You should read the articles before you link to them. This one describes normal weather balloons, which are far smaller than the Chinese balloons and can only travel about 100 miles.

I'm afraid you are the one making things up. The article doesn't say anything about balloons following air currents, quite the opposite:

That’s because balloons still offer unique advantages: They don’t disturb their surrounding environment, they’re very gentle on scientific instruments, they can hover in one place for extended periods of time

Normal weather balloons are far smaller and incapable of crossing an ocean. The Chinese balloon was not a normal weather balloon.