Quote Originally Posted by Skip View Post
There's an opinion that the word "narrow" is being used to describe the scope of the ruling and not the overwhelming 7-2 win.
Bingo. From what I'm reading, it was NOT a ruling that religious freedom trumped the protection for gays, but more a finding of disparate treatment. Gorsuch cited that this was a case where a religious baker refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, and was found to have discriminated. Meanwhile, separately, a religious man went to 3 bakers and asked them to put an anti-gay statement on a cake, and they refused, but were found NOT to have discriminated. Essentially, the exact same case, just with the roles reversed.

This, the court said, was discriminatory, particularly combined with the public (and never rebuked) statement by the commission of how religion was evil, led to the holocaust, etc.

THAT's what the finding was. That's why it's narrow.