Title II - of what statute? This is purely a 1st A case. I'm beginning to think you didn't read it, because...

According to you, the logical conclusion of Sotomayor's dissent is that an architect couldn't refuse to design a house with a room specifically for FGM, because that would be refusing a fundamentalist Muslim client, or a house with multiple rooms for wives, because that would be refusing an LDS client.

But she says *very clearly* in the dissent that Smith could refuse to design any website that has the words "Love is Love" or say that she only uses biblical quotes in her websites for weddings, thereby solving the problem (because this would likely not be the design a gay couple wants) without asking for the right to discriminate outright. Smith still has control *over the design.*