The case was certainly manufactured but it also turned on a fairly narrow point -- the definition of what 'expression' is vs what commerce is. The ruling further carves out an exception sort of along the same lines that while baker can't refuse to sell a cake to anyone that walks in the door, they can refuse to decorate a cake with a piece of text they find objectionable - the theory sort of being along the same lines that you can't force an author to write a book that says what you want said instead of what he wants to say. It hinges on finding the crossover point between ordinary tasks and tasks that 'express speech.' I think anyone would agree with the principle in the limiting case - i.e. Probably everyone would agree Steven King should be allowed to refuse to write a screen play for Mein Kampf. Whether Scotus found the correct reasonable scope to the principle is debatable. Since as I understand, the 'web site' in question never existed, It's pretty hard to say whether the commerical request demanded 'speech' by the web builder - unless you are a conservative Judge and just stipulate it did.