As both an atheist and a gay person, a part of me wants to point out that free speech is important too; it’s what allows atheists to speak out against religious abuses, for example. But the government isn’t forcing anyone to design marriage websites for money, and if you decide that you want to do that for a living, then there will be some minimal requirements on what kinds of things you can and can’t do, just as there are for any job. And there are already some limits on what “free speech” can be used to justify, you can’t incite violence for example (I’ve been worried about that recently, as you can see in my comment history).

In general, it seems to me like the problem is that there are multiple rights that the constitution “guarantees” to everyone, but sometimes those rights, when they are maximally interpreted, are in conflict with each other. Generally speaking, the best principle I know of to deal with this problem is “Your rights end where my rights begin.” But sometimes that doesn’t suffice, and we are forced to make hard decisions, where some degree of one claimed “right” must be sacrificed in order to protect another. Then, the only things we are in control of are how important we think these conflicting rights are, to what degree (and in what ways) we think it’s reasonable to restrict one in favor of the other. Everyone, including Supreme Court “Justices”, can make bad decisions, and we have to decide what we are going to do about it in response.

I think in this case, maybe it would be a good idea to promote using the very right these Justices are citing, the right to free speech, to deny any similar services to them personally. Back before marriage equality was decided as it was (and if this trend of overturning long-standing Supreme Court precedents continues, may need to be fought all over again, just like the right to abortion already is), I briefly thought it might be a good idea for some “civil disobedience”, simply to refuse to “marry” anyone who thinks gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry. Just consider all the Pat Robertson acolytes to be “lifelong bachelors” or “old maids” themselves, no matter what papers they may be carrying that say the contrary.

IANAL, but so far as I know, Supreme Court Justices are not a protected class (yet?), no matter how much they may be used to being treated as above the law. So maybe they need to be shown what can happen when large numbers of people think they are so morally reprehensible that they should be denied services they think is their right. However, I would feel like I am being dishonest if I did not at least note that most religious right-wingers would likely just write off any such protests as part of “woke culture”, or whatever BS they are favoring today, and make a big show of not following along with any such proposal.