Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who declined to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding due to a religious objection.
In a 7-2 decision, the Justices held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed “hostility” toward the baker, Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop, based on his religious beliefs, however, the ruling still leaves the larger constitutionality of the case in question.
“The commission's hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the ruling.
However, the court's ruling was narrow in scope as Kennedy noted that “further elaboration in the courts” is needed before wide legal precedent can be established.
“The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market,” Kennedy said.
Following the court's ruling, some, including President Donald Trump's son, took to Twitter to criticize the media for reporting that the ruling was “narrow.”
“I am reading about a 7 - 2 vote. Pretty sure that's not narrowly... At least 2 dem leaning justices must have agreed,” Donald Trump Jr. wrote.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) also took a shot at outlets calling the ruling “narrow,” tweeting:
Today’s Supreme Court decision upholding a Colorado baker’s constitutional right to live according to his faith is a major victory for religious liberty. The fact that the decision was 7-2 (not a narrow 5-4) underscores that govt should NEVER discriminate against religious faith.
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) June 4, 2018
However, others, including Conservative Review, pointed out that while the vote itself wasn't narrow, the ruling was — meaning the decision “does not resolve the controversy over constitutional protections for free exercise of religion vs. anti-discrimination laws.”