But what if some of the judges have a personal dislike of Twitter? Would it matter who bribed Thomas more?

I'm pretty sure that ruling specifically relied on the denial of service being an expression of religious belief, which would be a hard sell here.

(Also, not endorsing the ruling, that's just my understanding of it).

Wouldn’t that be a bit of a stretch? In the first case they’re refusing patrons while Twitter is blocking a whole service/platform