Will The Supreme Court Rule For Or Against The Baker Who Refused To Sell A Gay Couple A Cake?

Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake to celebrate the spousal relationship of a aforementioned sex couple because of a religious objection.

The ruling was 7-2.

READ: Supreme Court decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

The courtroom held that the Colorado Ceremonious Rights Commission showed hostility toward the bakery based on his religious behavior. The ruling is a win for baker Jack Phillips, who cited his behavior as a Christian, simply leaves unsettled broader constitutional questions on religious freedom.

"Today's decision is remarkably narrow, and leaves for some other day virtually all of the major constitutional questions that this case presented," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the Academy of Texas School of Law. "Information technology'south hard to see the decision setting a precedent."

The ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, held that members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed animus toward Phillips specifically when they suggested his claims of religious freedom were made to justify discrimination.

The case was one of the most anticipated rulings of the term and was considered past some as a follow-up from the court'south conclusion 3 years ago to clear the way for same-sex marriage nationwide. That stance, also written by Kennedy, expressed respect for those with religious objections to gay matrimony.

"Our society has come up to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated every bit social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," he wrote Mon.

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner, who represented Phillips, praised the ruling.

"Jack serves all customers; he merely declines to limited messages or gloat events that violate his securely held beliefs," Waggoner said in a statement. "Creative professionals who serve all people should be gratuitous to create art consistent with their convictions without the threat of government punishment."

She farther added that the instance "volition affect a number of cases for years to come in gratuitous exercise jurisprudence. That's how the courtroom's decisions work."

Waggoner said Phillips is "relieved" at the courtroom'southward decision and that he will be working with the Brotherhood Defending Freedom to make up one's mind when to move forward to continue making wedding cakes.

"It'due south been a long, six-twelvemonth battle where his family business, his income, has been hanging in the balance. He's also, plain, handling a large volume of calls himself and looking out for the protection of his family, to be candid," Waggoner said.

Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, emphasized the narrowness of the opinion.

"The court reversed the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision based on concerns unique to the example merely reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including confronting LGBT people," Melling said in a argument.

Because Justice Clarence Thomas concurred in part, the judgment of the court on the case was 7-two but the stance on the rationale was half-dozen-ii.

Religious tolerance

Kennedy wrote that there is room for religious tolerance, pointing specifically to how the Colorado commission treated Phillips by downplaying his religious liberty concerns.

"At the same fourth dimension the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression," Kennedy wrote, calculation that the "neutral consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here."

"The commission's hostility was inconsistent with the Kickoff Subpoena'southward guarantee that our laws exist applied in a manner that is neutral toward organized religion," Kennedy said, adding to say that the example was narrow.

"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await farther elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious behavior, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open up market place," the opinion states.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her dissent which was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that "when a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake jubilant their nuptials -- not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings -- and that is the service (the couple) were denied."

Bakery emphasizes Christian beliefs

Phillips opened the baker in 1993, knowing at the outset that there would be sure cakes he would decline to make in order to abide by his religious behavior.

"I didn't desire to use my artistic talents to create something that went against my Christian religion," he said in an interview with CNN last year, noting that he has also declined to make cakes to gloat Halloween.

In 2012, David Mullins and Charlie Craig asked Phillips to bake a cake to celebrate their planned hymeneals, which would be performed in some other country. Phillips said he couldn't create the production they were looking for without violating his organized religion.

"The Bible says, 'In the beginning there was male and female,'" Phillips said.

He offered to brand any other baked appurtenances for the men. "At which point they both stormed out and left," he said.

Mullins and Craig filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which ruled in their favor, citing a land anti-discrimination law. Phillips took his case to the Colorado Court of Appeals, arguing that requiring him to provide a wedding cake for the couple violated his constitutional right to liberty of spoken communication and free practise of religion. The court held that the country anti-bigotry law was neutral and generally applicative and did non compel Phillips' Masterpiece Cakeshop to "support or endorse whatever item religious view." It merely prohibited Phillips from discriminating confronting potential customers on account of their sexual orientation.

"This instance is near more than us, and it's non well-nigh cakes," Mullins said in an interview terminal year. "It's almost the right of gay people to receive equal service."

The Trump administration sided with Phillips.

"A custom nuptials block is not an ordinary baked practiced; its function is more communicative and artistic than commonsensical," Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued. "Accordingly, the government may not enact content-based laws commanding a speaker to engage in protected expression: An artist cannot be forced to paint, a musician cannot be forced to play, and a poet cannot be forced to write."

This story has been updated.

CNN'due south Maegan Vazquez contributed to this report.