Ruvan22 posted... or even refuse another religion?
Outright stated.
Consider what a contrary approach would mean. Under
Colorados logic, the government may compel anyone who
speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on
that same topicno matter the underlying messageif the topic somehow implicates a customers statutorily protected trait. 6 F. 4th, at 1198 (Tymkovich, C. J., dissenting).
Taken seriously, that principle would allow the government
to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others
whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty. The government could require an
unwilling Muslim movie director to make a film with a Zi-
onist message, or an atheist muralist to accept a commis-
sion celebrating Evangelical zeal, so long as they would
make films or murals for other members of the public with
different messages. Id., at 1199. 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.
Though this only applies to the creative part though. Like the actual speech has to be what the person finds objectionable and not the client. You could, for instance, decide that you'll only create statues of men. However you couldn't decide to only sell statues to men.