An intrinsic issue is property rights. If one owns a business, they have every right to do with it as the please. If someone is turned down, they can go somewhere else.
But you do know what while social media can discriminate according to ideological content, yet they cannot (manifestly) do so on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, nationality. And in the recent eyes of the "now woke" law then since homosexuality is treated as race color, ethnicity etc., then a refusal to be complicit in celebrating an immoral and illegal (at the time in CO) wedding for a couple who are part of a protected racial class, then in the eyes of the law this would be akin to the refusal to create a wedding cake for a black wedding due to racist views. The homosexuals are treated as a racial, ethnic class and their identity of the couple is necessarily intrinsically linked to the reason for the refusal.
Such is the result of the tragedy of SCOTUS confusing a immoral behavior with a civil right. One should be able to refuse to create a work or foster an event that they consider immoral as long the customer or the work or service is not judged as being such due amoral aspects as race, color, ethnicity, etc. In other works you cannot refuse provide for an interracial event. But when the express purpose of the work or service is too celebrate or foster something immoral, then the refusal by the provider should not be treated as wrong based upon the status of the customer which status is intrinsically related to a behavior. They might as well as provide endocannibals with special protected status since this is related to their proclivity to engage in consensual consumption of the flesh of the dead. And which a business must therefore help celebrate.
Not since 1964.