But even the SCOTUS does not see it that way. Which is why Jack Phillips won his case.
As a contractor (which he was) you are in an entire different class then a vendor.
I currently act as both vendor and contractor. I sell books, games and other media. You may come into my store and select any thing off the shelf you want and, providing you have the money and are an adult, I will sell it to you.
However I also take contracts to find things. I have customers who want to hunt down signed copies, unrevised copies, first editions and so forth. I will consider what you want and tell you, yes or no. I do not have to take your commission. I can refuse it for any number of reasons and I do not have to explain.
No, Jack Phillips did win any case because SCOTUS does not see it "that way," that this feelings-based protected status is valid, and overrules religion objection.
The issue in Masterpiece Cakeshop: Is a business’s freedom to choose its customers more important than the government interest in stopping sexual orientation discrimination? The Supreme Court did not answer this question, but instead decided the case on narrower grounds by concluding that members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission expressed impermissible hostility to religion.
Interestingly, the Court had the chance to take such a case after its decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop that involved a florist who refused to make flower arrangements for a same-sex wedding, but the Court remanded the case in light of Masterpiece Cakeshop. In Arlene’s Flowers v. Washington, the Washington State Supreme Court came to the same conclusion as the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the Colorado Court of Appeals.- https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/not-a-masterpiece/ (source itself shows bias)
Meaning, SCOTUS basically said that the attitude of the prosecution was biased, not that the merits of the case was wrong.
Yet if there was any case in which religious exemption would allow refusal to be complicit in celebrating a homosexual union then this was it. For Masterpiece was indeed asked to be complicit (by contracting to create a special cake) in the celebration of an immoral (God's law) and illegal (state law, the CO constitutions at the time) and was and is being punished for refusal to do so.
However, since SCOTUS (via 5-4 vote) wickedly criminalized the refusal to recognize homosex unions, then it finds itself in a quandary when faced with a business which refuses to provide something for that express purpose. Everyone business must make the bed for them.
I also take contracts to find things. I have customers who want to hunt down signed copies, unrevised copies, first editions and so forth. I will consider what you want and tell you, yes or no. I do not have to take your commission. I can refuse it for any number of reasons and I do not have to explain.
But you cannot refuse to provide a service offered to others if refusal is based upon protected status aspects. At least if you are a Christian. If that Uber driver refused to provide transportation service to a homosexual wedding then he would be in as much trouble or more than if he refused to provide service to a BLM rally.