Technically, isn't the ruling that the website designer can refuse to create same-sex wedding content? If the same-sex couple commissioned a website for a hetero wedding, the designer would be obligated, right?

It's a subtle distinction, but legally important.

Things get really messy because it's tough to disentangle the content from those commissioning the website in the case of a same-sex wedding.

Don't get me wrong: I hold these web designers in low regard. However, my understanding is that this ruling isn't as bad as the headline suggests.