There are plenty of recent examples of the SCOTUS inappropriately making up new religious rights. But this is not one of them. The court even pointed out that their decision could be used against religious expression.

For example, if a Christian asked an atheist to design a "He gets us" ad, then previously the atheist might have violated the law if he refused (since religion is a protected class). According to the new SCOTUS ruling, the atheist cannot be punished for refusing.

This ruling was not based on religion.

Basically, if your job involves messaging, then you can refuse to produce messages you don't agree with. It doesn't necessarily have to do with religion.

For example, suppose a Russian hired you to make a pro-Putin website. You can refuse, even if there is a state law barring discrimination by national origin.

This only applies to messaging. If the same Russian wanted to eat at your restaurant or stay in your hotel, you cannot refuse on the basis of his ethnicity.

I'm gonna have to rank penicillin and transistors above lithium batteries.

They aren't defederating everyone. They are selectively defederating the instances they don't like. Or selectively federating the instances they do like. Which is exactly how the fediverse is meant to work.

If you like the instances they don't like, or vice versa, then you should make your account on an instance other than theirs. Which is also how the fediverse is meant to work.

I'm not sure the problem is so trivial.

Long before the existence of IP, people who developed something new would keep their manufacturing process secret in order to prevent competition. Even today, sometimes they still do (in fact, the purpose of patents is to discourage trade secrets).

Now suppose someone invents a new medicine, or a new alloy, or a new machine, or a new algorithm, and refuses to tell anyone how it was made or how it works.

And suppose reverse engineering isn't feasible. Maybe it's too much work considering the value of the product (nobody is interested in reverse engineering your particular favorite shampoo). Or maybe the machine uses sufficiently strong encryption to prevent its reproduction. Or maybe there is some other obstacle.

Again, before modern capitalism these problems were the norm. If you wanted a very particular product, you often had no choice but to find a very particular provider.

As before, at what point does paying someone to help make such a product become exploitation?