The case against Phillips had nothing to do with the Colorado marriage law, nor absence of the marriage law. It was about his refusal to create a cake for the celebration in Colorado, of a homosexual wedding in a different state. The charge was that he discriminated against the “couple” for being homosexuals. The anti-discrimination law didn’t change when the marriage law changed.
If you read the majority opinion, you’ll see the brief mention of Colorado law regarding homosexual “marriage” was brought up to make the point that Phillips was treated different from the other bakers because of his religious beliefs. THAT is the reason the SC overturned the lower court’s ruling. NOT because homosexual “marriage” wasn’t recognized in Colorado in 2012.
I think I was saying the same thing but the SC did mention that the law was different in 2012 then it is now. The SC noted that the Colorado Human rights commission, several of the members were contemptuous of Phillips’ religious beliefs and on that basis was the Colorado rulings overturned. I understand the “discriminatory” part was not ruled on and was avoided.