A third solution: if, in doing a thing, you feel you absolutely must discriminate against a protected class, then don’t do that thing for anyone. Discrimination prevented and speech not compelled.
That said — even within this case, that argument falls flat. The crux of the defense is “it’s not that I wouldn’t take on gay clients, I just won't make a wedding website for them.” Cool, so just don’t make wedding websites. There are plenty of other kinds of websites people will pay you to make. Leave the wedding sites to designers who won’t discriminate against gay people.
We could replace the first amendment with "just don't say anything controversial". We could replace the right to privacy with "just don't have anything you want to hide".
It's important to define our rights and freedoms. The question of whether we want customers to be able to compell speech is an important one.
Again, my suggestion — wherein she can’t make wedding websites for anyone — doesn’t compel speech. But if I had to abandon practicality, I would say she should be forced to make the website.
Now change things around and pretend the dating website was for LGBTQ+ people. Do you see how you cannot possibly implement your proposal in a non-discriminatory way? Freedom of association is a thing because humans want to associate with like humans. This has been the case for all of human history. That doesn't automatically ascribe evil intent to anyone--whether a Christian on my hypothetical Christian dating website or an LGBTQ+ person on an LGBTQ+ dating website. Each group simply wants to associate with one another.
The beautiful thing about the United States is that people have fifty states from which to choose. If you favor one type of association move to states that generally believe those things. If you favor another, move to those states. Having the federal government dictate that all states will favor associations only between certain approved groups is a recipe for discord.
We’ve also tried allowing these sorts of de jure discriminatory policies. The end result was businesses with signs that said things like “No Negroes” and “Jews Not Allowed”. The solution isn’t to tell people to move to a place where businesses can’t discriminate like that; it’s to make that discrimination illegal everywhere.
No mater what kind of website (forum, web app, social network, wedding, etc..) she probably doesn't want to make a certain type of content.
It is the same for any person. There is a topic for each of us that we want no part of 'supporting' even if we have no problem serving people who do support it.
Making a website collecting donations for Trump. Making a website supporting Israel. Making a website for a pride parade. Making a website supporting/condemning Hong Kong/BLM/OWS movements.
Doesn't mater what you put for X, everyone has limits on what they are comfortable supporting. That is a separate issue from who you provide service to.
If I just make Nazi websites for black people, and refuse to make a Nazi website for some people, it isn't the Nazi website - it is the person that I disagree with.
This is a highly contrived example, but it could be about anything, not just sexual orientation. A black guy walks into a white guy's barber shop and asks for a bespoke African haircut. The white barber refuses on the grounds that he doesn't think he would do a good job since he has never done one before and doesn't intend to learn how to do those types of haircuts. The barber doesn't tell the black guy to leave, but he tells him to pick a different haircut. Is this discrimination? Should the barber be compelled to perform the haircut he doesn't want to do against his will? What if he then does a bad job? Is that a hate crime?
Is the barber analogy apt? Not really. White and Black haircuts are generally considered different "categories", and offering one does not generally confer an expectation to offer the other.
Is the pancake analogy apt? Not really. A pancake of "people kissing" is substitutable. It might not be the first choice for a gay couple, but there's no intrinsic reason they couldn't get a pancake with a flower on it instead. Now, if you were offering portraits of couples kissing, and you refused to do gay couples, that would be analogous — they're not going to get a portrait of a different couple, so this policy essentially means you don't accept gay customers.
Going the compulsory route is going to lead to decreased religious freedoms and increased social discord between the secular and religious demographics of the country, IMO.
Anyway, in my original reply to you I mentioned a solution that prevents discrimination without compelling speech. If you feel you must discriminate in providing a service, then you can't provide that service.
> Anyway, in my original reply to you I mentioned a solution that prevents discrimination without compelling speech. If you feel you must discriminate in providing a service, then you can't provide that service.
In my opinion, that solution is a slippery slope that will quickly infringe on religious freedom. Soon: "Pastors/priests/bishops/etc. are no longer allowed to perform weddings unless they also perform gay weddings (against their beliefs). After all, if you feel you must discriminate in providing a service, then you can't provide that service."
So then you'd have lots of pastors refusing to perform any marriages to avoid doing something against their beliefs, which, in turn, would vindicate all the people opposed to gay marriage who were worried gay marriage would "infringe on the religious sanctity of marriage". Religious freedom down, social discord up.
There's an alternate scenario, of course. Soon: "web designers across the nation refuse to make wedding websites for same-sex couples". Religious freedom up, social discord also up. I'm not sure why you think it's only a one-way street; allowing religion to be used as a pretext to discriminate against marginalized groups is also surefire way to divide people.
It seems like we're rapidly approaching a point at which further debate is fruitless, so let me clearly state my position here: where religious freedom and equal protection clash, I am staunchly in favor of subordinating the former to the latter.
Making a website for a gay couple and a straight couple requires the same sets of skills...
In both of your examples, the set of skills is different.
Baking a cake for a gay couple and a straight couple... same skills...