An in depth look at the legal implications and reasoning;
http://volokh.wpengine.com/2013/08/2...mination-case/

The decision comes down to three basic conclusions:

(1) The state’s antidiscrimination law applies. Discrimination against a same-sex couple (married or not) is discrimination based on “sexual orientation” and is prohited in public accomodations under the statute.

(2) The First Amendment does not protect the photographer. There is no free-speech right of a business to discriminate in providing services to the public.

(3) The state Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not apply.
Consider as well that photography is a form of artistic expression, and if we have freedom of speech (and expression) protecting our ability to say (and photograph) what we want, surely that means we have the freedom to not say (or photograph) what we don't want to. In this case, the government is compelling expression from an individual through the law.

CR