Most of what I've seen from the left is a complete misunderstanding of the decision. They seem to think that it means that businesses can discriminate against whoever they want. This is not the case at all.

The petitioner was a website designer. Both her, the state, and even the 10th Circuit agreed that her work involved expressive speech under 1A. The only question was whether a balancing test could be used to conclude that the state could compel speech via law by forcing her to make websites with content with which she disagreed in order to stay in business. The 10th Circuit said yes, SCOTUS said no.

On the otherhand, both petitioner, the state, the 10th Circuit, and SCOTUS agreed that she could be punished under Colorado Law for discriminating against the people themselves, e.g. it would still be illegal for her to discriminate against someone because they were gay where they were asking for her to make a site about the American Revolution.