It also rejected the idea that especially creative and expressive professionals (like photographers) should be exempted under the First Amendment while more mundane and generic services (like cake-baking) should not be.While it's my opinion that the photographer (Elane Photography) should have photographed the ceremony, it's also my opinion that the gay couple (Willock) is simply being a petulant child. A photographer didn't want to photograph her ceremony, so she sued? Really? How childish can you be? Imagine if she had prevailed earlier and had forced the photographer to photo the service? "I'm sorry, but all your heads were cut off. I'm not sure how that happened." "Simply a glitch." "All the photos were under exposed, except for the ones that were double-exposed."
What I find really amusing is the idea that a photog might be more creative than a baker, as referenced in the block quote above. Evidently, baking a wedding (commitment?) cake isn't considered art. But, I'd be damned careful asking someone to cook something I intend to eat and serve to guests, if they didn't fully support my ceremony. Or, I wouldn't tell them the whole story.
For the record, I'm evolving on gay marriage. I have a niece who is gay and when it's time for her to chose her life partner, I intend to support and celebrate their union. Forcing someone to work your wedding who doesn't support you is just a wee bit silly, and in Willock's case, suing the photog is simply being petulant. Get over yourself and find a photographer who wants the job.