Not at all. There is a distinct difference in individual choices which should be able to evoke a reaction from others and uncontrollable factors. Race, gender, disability are uncontrollable and are not “personal decisions”. Ones sexual partner is a personal decision. If the florist, lets say Jewish, prefers not to provide custom services to an Islamic customer for an Islamic event, they should have every right to decline the business. They should not be able to tell the Islamic person they can’t enter the store and purchase a flower that is already prepared and do with it whatever they desire.
So a performer offers their services when they declare themselves a performer. Should they be required to perform for anyone and any event that someone is willing to pay for? The court acknowledged (or implied) that certain levels of artistic and creative services may be exempted (such as painting or sculpture). Essentially the court is saying we don’t value your creative efforts as much as another creative endeavor. I think this was incredibly wrong. Additionally they stated that participation in the event was not enough to be considered as perceived endorsement of the event. Liberals have proven this wrong with every boycott of vendors, customers or performers choosing to associate with Donald Trump. Clearly simply choosing to design a dress for Melania is sufficient to evoke the assumption of support and demands for boycotts.
My support is for personal freedom whether I agree with the ideology or not. I would be disgusted if someone refused service to me because of a choice I made. I am disgusted at performers who refused to perform for Tump’s inauguration. However the question is not whether I like the choice but do I have the right to demand performance of another to accommodate my desires. I say absolutely not in almost all cases.