Originally posted by @sh76
Seems like kind of a narrow decision that's very fact-specific. I'm reading it now.
There's no question though, that it's at least something of a win for religious freedom.
It seems a really case specific based on a distaste for how the Colorado Civil Rights Commission expressed some views in the hearing - supposedly showing "hostility" towards religion. The Court reiterated early:
The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by
generally applicable laws.
And the ruling would seem to have little precedential value:
Given all these considerations, it is proper to hold that whatever the outcome of some future controversy involving facts similar to these, the Commission’s actions here
violated the Free Exercise Clause; and its order must be set aside. p. 3
Reading the full opinion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf