It's insane.
David French, in The Atlantic:
But though the state can demand that businesses provide goods and services to all comers without regard to race, sex, sexual orientation, and other protected categories, it cannot demand that businesses or individuals engage in speech proclaiming messages that they oppose, and, as Smith argues, designing websites is a form of speech.
Programming really isn't speech. Source code isn't written for humans. It's written for computers to tell them the steps to follow to perform tasks for humans. It's not a conversation a programmer has with another person. With the exception of teaching programmers how to write it, humans generally only read source code to make sure it's telling the computer to do the right thing; once that's sorted out, humans are generally very happy to never look at the source code again.
Note that French is agreeing that programming is speech.
Then the whole thing gets worse in a couple of ways.
But here’s where 303 Creative gets truly strange. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Smith was engaging in “pure speech” and that Colorado was compelling her speech, but it ruled for Colorado anyway. The reasoning in the majority opinion was extraordinary.
“This case does not present a competitive market,” the court said. “Rather, due to the unique nature of Appellants’ services, this case is more similar to a monopoly. The product at issue is not merely ‘custom-made wedding websites,’ but rather ‘custom-made wedding websites of the same quality and nature as those made by Appellants.’ In that market, only Appellants exist.”
Thus, because Smith possessed a monopoly over her own services, the state had a heightened interest in ensuring access to her work.
A monopoly over her own services? Shouldn't the FTC step in and break her up, for the good of the marketplace?
But French is being serious here. He approves of this nonsense. Because he is a homophobic nutbag, his take on this is:
“If rights of conscience attach to corporations worth trillions, shouldn’t they also attach to a single artist whose alleged ‘monopoly’ is merely in the sweat of her own brow?”
So the logic is:
Given: programming is speech
Given: website designers are artists
Therefore: web design is not a competitive market
Therefore: website designers are individual monopolists
Therefore: because large corporations can have morals [!!], these micro-monopolies should be allowed to express their morals through discrimination.
QED.
Remarkable, the lengths some people will go just to justify their unexamined fear of other people.