So yes I think everyone would agree you have some responsibility (otherwise no one would care about the outcome of the case, why request the right to discriminate if you don't feel that you have any responsibility for the resulting acts?)
I will agree that it's dubious that that nuance is reflected in the rulings on the Masterpiece case. I'm trying to follow the same lines set there, though, in my argumentation.
Would the added features be useful in another context? Would they be useful regardless of the type of work being done? Are they merely enhancements of the platform, or are they specifically tailored to the client's domain?
So if ICE asks github to prioritize better native CI support for Windows, or something, they're doing it because it is of maximum benefit to ICE.
IMO the former is more objectionable than the latter.