Nobody has mentioned 'services that are important'. So we'll skip that bit. But the ruling does actually mean that a 'certain type of person' can be refused service in certain, but far from unusual, conditions. I mean, that was what was asked for and that was the decision of the SC.
Here's Sotomayor's comment from the original link in the op:
Sotomayor, who read a summary of her dissent in court to underscore her disagreement, said the decision’s logic “cannot be limited to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.” A website designer could refuse to create a wedding website for an interracial couple, a stationer could refuse to sell a birth announcement for a disabled couple, and a large retail store could limit its portrait services to “traditional” families, she wrote.
Want to bet that there are other designers, stationers and store owners already contacting their legal team, eager to make a name for themselves?