She didn't get to the Supreme Court because she was forced to serve a client whose conduct she disapproved. In fact, this case doesn't involve a specific client at all. This case is about the would-be client that hasn't even walked in the door.
And the court isn't considering whether LGBTQIA+ people fall into a protected class category, that's not this case. Metaphorically, this case is whether or not she can put up a sign on her business's front door that says "No ___ allowed." And according to the article, this conservative SCOTUS appears to be sympathetic to the "No ___ allowed" sign.
It appears SCOTUS is trying to draw line between public accommodation businesses and businesses that create speech, a distinction I believe Justice Sotomayor and KBJ countered aptly.
I could imagine an ISP denying the use of its networks to LGBTQIA+ people because they have sincerely held religious objections to transmit those customers' data across their network.
And the court isn't considering whether LGBTQIA+ people fall into a protected class category, that's not this case. Metaphorically, this case is whether or not she can put up a sign on her business's front door that says "No ___ allowed." And according to the article, this conservative SCOTUS appears to be sympathetic to the "No ___ allowed" sign.
It appears SCOTUS is trying to draw line between public accommodation businesses and businesses that create speech, a distinction I believe Justice Sotomayor and KBJ countered aptly.
I could imagine an ISP denying the use of its networks to LGBTQIA+ people because they have sincerely held religious objections to transmit those customers' data across their network.