TexasCHLforum.com

IMHO it's a temporary win. I'd pretty much bet another gay couple will ask the baker to make them a cake for their wedding. He will, of course, refuse, and they will file a complaint with the same commission that ruled against him this time. The lower courts will agree when the same commission, without the biased remarks, rules against him. If the case again makes it to SCOTUS the results will not be 7-2, but a likely 5-4 in either direction because this time no statements of bias will be exhibited by the commission.

IMHO this ruling was based on the bias of the commission against the baker, and not on his right of religious freedom. Yes, it was a win for the baker, but it does not settle the right of a business owner to refuse service based on their religious beliefs. As tough as the decision will be trying to balance religious freedom vs. discrimination, the court needs to put it's big boy pants on next time and not kick the can down the road. Obviously, YMMV.

My first thoughts were how can 7-2 be narrow. However, as I read and hear, the "narrow" refers to the fact that it applies to this case only as the court found that the Colorado commission was biased against the plainif due to their "asserted hostility to religion." The ruling was deemed "narrow" as it did not address the rights of individuals to decline services "in all cases" based on religious beliefs. The court basically sidestepped that issue.