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