I had a similar experience with the Pledge of Allegiance in high school in the late 1950s to early 1960s but in my case I quietly refused to say the words “under god” because I thought this was enforcing a belief I didn’t hold at the time. I do not think this wedding website situation is exactly the same though. The website creators are not being asked to hold the same beliefs as the gay couple they refused service to, just do the work of creating the website. They could have removed their business from direct connection publicly by not putting the usual piece about them having done the job, which such businesses often do.

This case is about a business which has material advantages created by the laws, ordinary commerce and publicly created structures. This is why a restaurant can no longer refuse to serve Black or Hispanic customers, and why there have been recent cases where such discrimination was alleged by gay couples. As a public business you can’t do that. Again, they are not being asked to believe in homosexuality, just to create a wedding website the couple will use. That is work in exchange for money, not forced expression of belief.

Being forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance in a publicly funded school is not about pay in exchange for work done, so this is not the same. I agree that this could create discomfort for a liberal couple approached by a couple that wants Nazi symbols, but that doesn’t change the situation from the point of view of the First Amendment.