How does the following statement make any sense? I realize it’s dicta, but still, it just be wrong. The homosexual website designer would not be permitted to rely on any 1st Amendment right to refuse to fulfill the request of the anti-homosexual requester, so Colorado could force him to provide the design. Am I not correct on this? If not, where have I gone off the rails?
“Equally, the government could force a male website designer married to another man to design websites for an organization that advocates against same-sex marriage. ... As our precedents recognize, the First Amendment tolerates none of that.”
Those words from Gorsuch’s opinion are an explanation, illustrating why it is wrong for the state to compel speech that one baker disagrees with as a matter of deeply held personal belief (”hey, Christian, make me a gay cake”) when the state would not compel some other class of baker to act against his or her personal values, such as suing a gay baker for not making an anti-gay cake.