Thanks for publishing my photograph, @PrindlePost.
I am impressed that as time goes on, analyses like this one by Kevin Guilfoy become more reasoned and thoughtful, intead of kneejerk and “TL;DR” for lack of a better term.
What they could do is restrict the scope of goods and services that must be provided without discrimination. This would carve out a protected sphere for religious exceptions in non-essential accommodations. Phrased that way, it even sounds reasonable. It is not. An attempt to regulate which goods and services are significant or important, and thus protected, invites legal chaos as each product and service is litigated, and opens the door to massive government interference in the market. It is in order to avoid this mess that we distribute goods and services in a market in the first place.
The Supreme Court will soon decide whether products like wedding cakes count as speech, and whether their makers can refuse to serve LGBTQ couples.