Actually neither involves protected classes. At the time of the case, sexual orientation wasn’t protected. Fortunately, it was added as a protected class.
But even if it was a protected class at the time of the suite, I think the opinion was that religious rights (another protected class) come into play.
For me, this seems to expose that some people aren’t arguing from first principles but kind of change their position based on a pre-conceived notion.
So just like people now bringing up that looting isn’t so bad after the capital riot/insurrection were against rioting in situations over the summer.
It seems odd to me, or at least irrational, that someone could be against rioting for BLM purposes but for rioting for conspiracy theories. Or that someone could be against a baker’s ability to not serve a gay couple, but for a hosting company not serving an asshole megaphone company.
So just as people, rightly I think, were arguing that discrimination against sexual orientation should be a protected class and thus illegal; people now are arguing that net neutrality/free speech should have regulation, change in rights.
It’s not “ironic” in either sense.