It may be that "forcing a web designer to express approval for gay marriage exercises precisely the same principle as...forcing an artist to paint a flattering portrait of a white supremacist".

However, in the example of the artist and the white supremacist, the artist's objection would surely be based on a rejection of the racist and (by definition) divisive views this person has CHOSEN to adopt. Presumably, the artist would not deny him a portrait because of some immutable characteristic (his maleness, straightness or whiteness) the painting would communicate about him that they happen to dislike, and would not like to be seen to be endorsing.

I too feel uncomfortable with the idea that the Supreme Court should force any person who provides a non-essential product to serve people they don't wish to do business with. Particularly if doing so would be seen as an endorsement of something one has an objection to. But let's not pretend religious intolerance and prejudice against people for who they fundamentally are is every bit the equal to rejecting someone for the extremist political views their choose to hold. This seems a sleight of hand by David French in this analogy, who I otherwise respect and admire.