No it isn't. She's running a business, which means that like all other businesses it must abide and follow rules and regulations set forth, one of which is the anti-discrimination law which was at the center of the lawsuit.
Playing by rules and regulations is part of the social contract, same as paying taxes which fund shared services like firemen, policemen, aqueducts which bring running water to your home, etc.
On the other hand, if she was
invited to the wedding she would be free to refuse. But as a BUSINESS she can't refuse service to people based on their sexual orientation.
As for the straw-man argument of the "no shirt-no service", that's a dress code. Difference is that you CAN get service, you simply have to wear a shirt, something which you have power over, and why "you black - no service" is not because you can't change your skin cool.
Unless you're Michael Jackson of course
