Not clearly. It stated that religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression, but "some instances" is left ambiguous, while court specifically stated that the CO civil rights commission showed a "clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection."
Conservative blogger Matt Walsh opined,
"Do not call this 'a huge win for religious liberty.' It simply isn't," he wrote in a tweet. "That is an inaccurate and misleading statement. This is a huge win for Jack Phillips, specifically, but it does precisely nothing to help the general cause of religious liberty." Despite the outcome, the American Civil Liberties Union, the law firm representing the couple, argued that the court's ruling was "based on concerns specific to the case." - https://www.christianpost.com/news/supreme-court-rules-christian-baker-jack-phillips-can-refuse-make-gay-wedding-cakes.html
See my other comments above.
Got it, thanks.