Let's talk about what this ruling actually means.
Either the law protects people's civil rights over another's speech, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it must be legal to discriminate against people on the basis of their religious beliefs. Full stop.
Religion is the ONLY choice that is protected under civil rights law. Every other civil rights protection — race, sex, national origin, disability, age, gender identity, and sexual orientation — are based on innate and unchangeable characteristics. Things you're born with. Being gay or trans isn't a choice. There is no choice. It's simply who someone is.
But being religious? That's a choice. And being a bigot? That's absolutely a choice.
So what happened here is that two choices — the choice to follow a religion and the choice to discriminate — were given more legal weight than the innate, biological identity of the people being discriminated against.
When you argue that free speech based on religion overrides civil rights protections, you're sawing off the only branch that protects something you actually did chose. Every other protected group has biology on their side. You have a belief and a choice to discriminate — and you just set the precedent that neither one has to be respected.
Either civil rights protections hold for everyone, or they hold for no one. You don't get to use free speech as a weapon to attack others and turn around and use it as shield for yourself.
