> Should an artist be compelled to create artwork depicting religious scenes? Imagine a pastor asks an artist for a graphic recreation of Jesus' crucifixion - s

> Should an artist be compelled to create artwork depicting religious scenes? Imagine a pastor asks an artist for a graphic recreation of Jesus' crucifixion - should they be compelled to create it? This is, I think, the better comparison that should be drawn, not so much your other points. The KKK isn't a protected category, but religion is. An argument that someone might be compelled to make a website for a hate group is a theoretical argument about what could happen in the future. Regardless of how likely it is to happen or how reasonable the argument might be (and I do think it has some merit as an argument), it's still currently the case that a hate group doesn't fall under the same protected status behind anti-discrimination laws. However, religion does. It's not theoretical, it's a protected category today. Want to preface that I'm not a lawyer, but from what I understand about current anti-discrimination laws, a ruling that speech for protected categories could be compelled would imply that a secular website designer could be compelled today to make a website for a religious wedding featuring religious iconography or messaging that they found offensive or traumatic. I don't know that for sure though, I'd want a 1st Amendment lawyer to chime in one way or another. Regardless, I kind of suspect this would get overturned anyway if put to the test. I don't have the qualifications to argue confidently about it, but I suspect that the current Supreme Court would not agree with this ruling.