[skr]

It means that government officials must allow creative professionals without storefronts anywhere in the city and state the freedom to make their own decisions about which ideas they will use their artistic expression to promote. The court found—and the city and state have now agreed—that such professionals cannot be punished under public accommodation laws for exercising their artistic freedom because those laws simply don’t apply to them.

Does this mean that having a storefront isn't similarly protected?

[posterchild]

Good question. This may have serious consequences - in a good way.

[Bob434]

yes, it appears to me that that’s what it means- the ruling basically states in so many words that if you own a storefront- you are not allowed to have religious or personal objections, and that you must agree to participate (in the capacity of your profession) in gay weddings even if it violates your religious beliefs- Apparently constitutional rights do not apply to people who own storefronts