I am following this with interest, because of what Samuel Alito asked regarding wedding officiants, such as me. He asked: "Can they be forced to write vows or speeches that espouse things they loath?"

In my business as a wedding officiant, I advertise myself as a humanistic minister, specializing in non-religious style weddings and funerals. I accept couples and families of all religious and sexual identities, but I perform only humanistic ceremonies. That is my religious denomination. I even have it in my booking agreement that the ceremony will NOT be a religious worship service.

I do however allow my clients to have religious wording in the vows they say to each other, and allow religious worship prayers, if they wish to recite it themselves or have a wedding guest do the honors, but I do not recite any theistic worship prayer, or anything from a religious text, unless it is something like a few lines from 1st Corinthians, which is pretty benign, as it simply talks about love.

So far, I've had no problems with religious couples who seek me out for a humanistic style ceremony. If it turns out that prospective clients would prefer a religious style ceremony, I simply refer them to one of the many religious style ministers of their faith.

My stance is that, as an atheist, I perform only non-theistic ceremonies. That has not been a problem yet, but I wonder if I will be tested by someone threatening a law suit if I refuse to recite a religious prayer of their choosing. (I currently suggest they have a family member recite the prayer, if they wish to include it.) I am simply not a theist, and they have knowingly hired me as a very outspoken atheist. So, as a Humanistic Minister, it goes against my faith to recite religious worship prayers that are of another religion than mine. So, that presents a bit of a paradox with this particular court case.

While it causes no discomfort for a religious minister to say a sentence without mention of their God, it does cause me discomfort to recite a sentence (I did not write) that professes worship to a God to whom I don't subscribe. I have several workarounds I present to my clients, such as suggesting I say "With the source of all creation as our witness..." or some such more vague representation of a higher power. That is either accepted or rejected until we come to a compromise that is comfortable for all.

I specialize in custom ceremonies written in a humanistic style. Why anyone would hire me to perform a religious style ceremony is beyond me, but they do once in a while. (Usually that is because they don't read my website and the definition of "humanistic" as I describe on my website and in my contract.)

I recently had a couple hire me to perform a Hawaiian ceremony, speaking and chanting in Hawaiian language, plagiarizing a script written by another wedding officiant. I refused. I suggested some of the island style scripts I have written myself, referencing Hawaiian traditions and values, but that wasn't what they wanted, so I referred them to a full blooded Hawaiian Kahu who specializes in his very unique style which seemed more in keeping with what they were seeking. (I highly doubt he would plagiarize the other kahu either, but that's not for me to say.) I agreed to refund their deposit and they found a better fit for their vision using the referrals I gave them. All is good. We all have our niche set of skills and specialties, and it behooves us to stick to our own lanes and comfort zones. I'm not comfortable pretending to be Hawaiian which I'm not, nor pretending to be a Theist, which I'm not.

Similarly, there are a few photographers who are not comfortable with photographing same sex couples, while there are many who gladly do and are wonderful at encouraging the beautiful and comfortable displays of affection for wedding photos. Those more openly welcoming photographers advertise their welcome of same sex couples... The few who don't welcome same sex couples simply don't encourage same sex couples to inquire, and so if they do end up photographing them, it might not be their best work. A few have just take some time to get used to the idea... and now they are so much better at photographing same sex couples. I've seen this happen with some who used to refer all same sex couples to another photographer, but now are finally comfortable themselves to provide good service to them. They just needed some time.

It's really hard to force creative artistry when the artist isn't comfortable. You can force it, but is it really in the best interest for all involved? The good news is that we still have choices for who we hire to perform our services. Forcing someone to provide services when they don't feel comfortable may or may not be a good thing. One size does not fit all with the many other situations this ruling could affect.

As far as designing websites for wedding couples whose genders aren't really a factor in the creative process, I'm puzzled as to the reasoning behind this particular case. The web designer doesn't currently even offer wedding websites. Does this mean she is thinking about what these couples might do in their bedrooms? Hmm... I don't think about that for any of my couples, clients or otherwise, regardless of their genders.

One challenge I've had in recent years is that I can't always tell by the couples names what gender they are, but that's only a challenge as far as pronouns in the ceremony script go. I sometimes have to rely on the fact that they have to declare their genders on the marriage license.

I don't see any good from allowing people to discriminate against clients who choose their services, based on racial, religious or sexual identity, but if that goes into affect, it is also wise to choose service providers who openly welcome us, however we identify.

Service providers who don't want to serve all perhaps shouldn't be in the business of providing services. Where does it stop? Carpet cleaners who won't clean carpets for atheist, mixed faith or mixed race households?

I'll be curious to see how this court case is resolved.

So Lorie Smith is exercising her right of free speech? No way! She is exercising her right to being an unadulterated bigot.

This Supreme Court will rule against our Constitution and base their opinion on THEIR Bible.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are above free speech.