yes, it appears to me that that’s what it means- the ruling basically states in so many words that if you own a storefront- you are not allowed to have religious or personal objections, and that you must agree to participate (in the capacity of your profession) in gay weddings even if it violates your religious beliefs- Apparently constitutional rights do not apply to people who own storefronts
I interpreted the phrase in a different way. I thought the judges were saying regardless of whether or not you operate your business from a storefront location. I was wondering if the plaintiffs tried to say that because the photographer didn’t have an actual store front location, they didn’t have grounds to refuse the photography.
It’s strange wording for sure.