If you read the dissent they actually don't say that. They say that the website designer should have to serve gay customers, but she could still maintain contro

If you read the dissent they actually don't say that. They say that the website designer should have to serve gay customers, but she could still maintain control over the work. For example, she could require them to have a giant banner on the website that says "Gay Marriage is a Sin". So she is forced to serve those customers but she can choose the way in which she does so. So in practical consequences it kinda doesn't matter which side won. It's not like anyone would want to get such a website made anyway.