The broader issue is the tiered morality built into modern liberalism, that others cannot set boundaries but liberals don’t see it as wrong or hypocritical if they set boundaries. So if you refuse per your religious or conservative political beliefs, that’s evil discrimination. If they refuse per their beliefs, it is moral and good and reasonable and no imposition at all.

And if they demand others obey the same rules per religious levels of investment in politics - they don’t like it and no one else should do it either - classic liberals rarely stand up to the liberal bullies, social justice warriors, because the demands for submission are wrapped in the same language of empathy and harm.

In her case, the liberal judges relied on emotional reasoning: Oh, the poor victim, you aren’t allowed to hurt their feelings. Her feelings don’t matter. In that case, it was making a wedding cake. For Christians, that’s blasphemy, while a birthday cake baring Jehovah’s Witnesses isn’t.

They even stripped her of personal immunity, not only shutting down the business but the prosecutor saying the suing party could go after her home. That was done because the prosecutor decided to punish her extra in ways no standard case is, because how dare she refuse those sacred homosexuals on their holiest day - thou shalt not dissent ever.

Unfair extra penalties when you say fairness is universal standards but not when liberals say “these groups have more rights and moral weight than everyone else”.