Honestly, I don't see how a ruling against the web designer would work. If she really doesn't want to do it, couldn't she just make a really crappy website that

Honestly, I don't see how a ruling against the web designer would work. If she really doesn't want to do it, couldn't she just make a really crappy website that nobody would want to use? If so, then the ruling is pointless. If not, how could you prove in court, beyond a reasonable doubt that she was doing it intentionally and she wasn't just bad at her job? They might well rule that web design counts as speech, and so she doesn't have to make speech she disagrees with by designing a website for a gay wedding. If this is how it goes, then logically, the ruling would apply to a narrower set of services than the article suggests. Things like selling flowers and catering don't have any significant creative component and so don't qualify as "speech" that needs to be free. Even the wedding cake case that made it to the supreme court wouldn't qualify, since the couple was refused before they said anything about the cake's design; they hadn't asked the baker to "say" anything at all.