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.