On Monday the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in the case of a Colorado baker who was penalized after he refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple's wedding, citing his religious objection.
The court ruled 7-2 in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop, holding that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was hostile to the baker because of his religious beliefs. Many conservatives were quick to celebrate the ruling as a victory for religious liberty.
Some also criticized the media for reporting the 7-2 decision as "narrow."
I am reading about a 7 - 2 vote. Pretty sure that's not narrowly... At least 2 dem leaning justices must have agree… https://t.co/nOxsDfj31k— Donald Trump Jr. (@Donald Trump Jr.)1528122396.0
7-2 hockey score = blow out 7-2 baseball score = not even close 7-2 #Scotus ruling = narrow? When progressive judg… https://t.co/tARLLjqPFG— Tim Young (@Tim Young)1528123845.0
The Ruling from SCOTUS: 7 to 2 vote. @ap wrote this as a "narrow decision." 5-4 is narrow, 7-2 is not.— BILL HEMMER (@BILL HEMMER)1528122743.0
But as CR senior editor Daniel Horowitz and others have explained, the ruling itself, not the split of justices, is narrow and does not resolve the controversy over constitutional protections for free exercise of religion vs. anti-discrimination laws.
Narrow refers to the legal precedent it sets https://t.co/2mMIotYCM9— Matt Walsh (@Matt Walsh)1528123056.0
The 7-2 ruling was focused on this case, and did not address larger question of whether First Amendment protects pr… https://t.co/4n2g3RoI7T— NBC Out (@NBC Out)1528124172.0
Don't be confused. The decision is narrow in the sense that it does not answer the question of whether an individual with religious convictions opposed to gay marriage may decline to serve a gay wedding.
