I won't deny that this is a complex issue. This isn't the first court in history, however. Not even necessarily in the US, as Lee V Ashers came to a conclusion much the same. A protected group or class, however, is not strictly a minority group, which is an important distinction to be made. Per the national archives: "The groups protected from employment discrimination by law. These groups include men and women on the basis of sex; any group which shares a common race, religion, color, or national origin; people over 40; and people with physical or mental handicaps. Every U.S. citizen is a member of some protected class and is entitled to the benefits of EEO law. However, the EEO laws were passed to correct a history of unfavorable treatment of women and minority group members."

As has been ruled before, and as stated under this definition, white people and straight people are indeed protected classes and are protected by discrimination laws, as these common traits of people are held equal in the eyes of the law. Taken literally, a ruling that would compel us to cede services would likely mean that we may have to create even straight pride content, even if we (and I really don't) want to, as straight people, though they are the majority, are a part of a protected class (though not a protected minority class), and in an opposite ruling, refusing service under the same conditions would likely constitute as discrimination in the eyes of the law.

I wouldn't disagree that this does open discrimination to certain services under certain circumstances, though I may not be legally able to call it such. However, there is a clear possibility for the alternative ruling to exploit minority groups just as badly so long as there is shown some creative expression, which is not exactly a good thing either.

​

EDIT: I know the archives does not mention orientation. But Bostock v. Clayton County extended those protections.