Abstracting away the specifics of the case (religion, sexual orientation), the true debate at hand is whether a human being should have the right to get an exem

Abstracting away the specifics of the case (religion, sexual orientation), the true debate at hand is whether a human being should have the right to get an exemption from a law based on beliefs (perhaps provided that these beliefs are strongly held, and commonly found within a particular community). Accepting that exemptions to laws are OK based on beliefs leads to an asymmetry between individuals, whereby those with beliefs gain an advantage that is not readily available to all. Here, playing the free speech card makes no sense, since the purpose of that card is to eliminate power asymmetries, not create them. In my view, the only way to conciliate laws and exemptions is to make exemptions sufficiently costly to eliminate built in advantages to selected groups, whichever they may be. I don't know what a fair way to do so would be. Perhaps an alternative exit that doesn't require an exemption is an even better solution. In the specifics of this case, couldn't the web designer hire a third party to take care of the job, providing the service as requested, but not executing it themselves?