Completely Missing the Point

It is simply false to assert, as many critics are doing, that 303 Creative v. Elenis means that Christians can deny services to LGBT folk. If a gay person wants to buy an item from a Christian vendor, ride in a taxi driven by a Christian cabbie, or secure a repair from a Christian plumber the businessperson is still obligated to provide that service.

What they're not now obligated to provide is a message that violates their conscience.

If the state cannot compel someone to recite the pledge of allegiance because the pledge violates their conscience, why should a web-designer be compelled by the state to design a message they find morally repugnant?

Would liberals demand that a black web-designer be compelled to create affirming messages for a klansman, or a muslim designer be required to create messages that promote Zionism? Probably not, but for some reason they think it outrageous that Christians can decline to create messages that offend their moral understanding.

Recently a small business owner posted signs in his or her windows saying that, since the Supreme Court ruled that businesses “can discriminate,” the business would not sell merchandise to Trump supporters and would only sell to churches that display pride flags.

This bit of moral preening completely misconstrues the 303 Creative decision and reflects poorly on the intelligence of the business' owner.

Even so, in response to the sign others have taken to social media to put their lack of intellectual acuity on display for the world to see:

“I own a few businesses and if I know that someone is a Trump supporter, I will refuse service!” one Twitter user said in response to the photo. "I don’t need that evil person’s money! Their lifestyle goes against my faith.”

“I wish I owned a retail business, so I could refuse to serve Conservative Christians on religious grounds,” said some liberal on Twitter.

“Gonna open a business and refuse to serve Christians,” remarked another.

Another wrote, “I am going to start a business and refuse to serve homophobic, heterosexual Christians.”

This is just weird. The Supreme Court didn't rule that businesses can discriminate. What the Court actually did was rule that the state cannot compel speech.

As the PJ Media article linked to above notes:

When the state insists that a professional must create something that violates their personal or religious beliefs, that’s a violation of their First Amendment rights. That is entirely different from a business refusing to sell merchandise to someone — which is flat-out discrimination.

In fact, neither Lorie Smith of 303 Creative nor the baker Jack Phillips ever denied service to gay customers; they only refused to create messages that celebrate a lifestyle going against their religious beliefs.

The ruling makes clear that nondiscrimination laws remain firmly in place, and that the government has never needed to compel speech to ensure access to goods and services.

Evidently, distinctions of this sort are a bit beyond the capacity of some social media warriors to grasp.