Clarity in this case and a victory for conscience.
USA TODAY: Supreme Court sides with baker in same-sex wedding cake case
Others have pointed out just how narrow this ruling is, but I wouldn't necessarily expect a later case to go the other way. For all the crowing about religious freedom, the simple fact is that the Establishment Clause has never been as strong as commonly suggested, and religious belief often must give way in favor of law. As the Supreme Court put it in 1879: Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145, 166-167 (1879). More recently, Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 882 (1990).Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.
Respondents urge us to hold, quite simply, that when otherwise prohibitable conduct is accompanied by religious convictions, not only the convictions but the conduct itself must be free from governmental regulation. We have never held that, and decline to do so now.
Meaning the ruling applies specifically to this case and its circumstances leaving open that the same type of case would be ruled in the opposite way given different circumstances such as a more recent filing of the suit. I mean, you're not totally wrong but you'd have to be pretty personally invested in the life of this cake decorator to consider this a victoryThe outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts,
the long-awaited decision did not resolve whether other opponents of same-sex marriage, including bakers, florists, photographers and videographers, can refuse commercial wedding services to gay couples
The victory in this case is twofold: A person who did not dicriminate against gays in general, was vindicated in his objection to affirming a behavioral practice he did not agree with. Furthermore, he sold cakes to LGBT folks that did not "celebrate" the practice. He also declined to do custom cakes for folks who overtly deamaned gay people, or certain Halloween cakes, or white supremacist groups. So, his objection to using his art to support behavior that he objected to, as a matter of religious conscience was affirmed. Secondly, it showed the abuse of certain religious tenants by governmental entities which happens more often in the last 20 years. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission would probably have censored George Washington's innaguaral speech. This bigoted, biased, and overtly antagonistic body, towards people of faith, should be disciplined for their behavior and point of view as far as jurisprudence.
Clarity solely for this one case and a victory for absolutely nobody.The 7-2 verdict criticized the state's treatment of Jack Phillips' religious objections to gay marriage in 2012, several years before the practice was legalized nationwide. The justices ruled that a state civil rights commission was hostile to him while allowing other bakers to refuse to create cakes that demeaned gays and same-sex marriages.
As a result, the long-awaited decision did not resolve whether other opponents of same-sex marriage, including bakers, florists, photographers and videographers, can refuse commercial wedding services to gay couples. Phillips' victory, the court said, was limited to the facts of the Colorado case.
"Phillips would not sell to Craig and Mullins, for no reason other than their sexual orientation, a cake of the kind he regularly sold to others," Ginsburg said.
This is what this case was about and that is the reason for the "narrow ruling". As the majority stated, more will be decided in the courts as time goes on. This was a victory for this artist, and the State of Colorado should pay reparations for the damage their bigoted and based actions caused this business owner. So, I disagree. This was a victory for the cake artist and his conscience and for the abuse of citizens by biased governmental adjudication bodies which acted like a fascists (forcing their governmental power inappropriately upon individual citizens).
I think you're missing the context. The guy refused equal treatment to a couple of people based on nothing but his preference (that it's supposedly dictated by his religion is, to me, entirely irrelevant). Him winning against persecution for prejudice is no victory.This was a victory for the cake artist and his conscience