I agree with you with one large exception and that is the ruling was based in great part on the existing law regarding same sex marriage at the time. Because of that the justices agreed Phillip’s belief that is actions were lawful was reasonable. But only in that time frame.
I do believe that the ruling allows for the state to find against similar cases provided their ruling is religiously neutral. As such it does not tell the state that they have to allow Christians and other people of faith to refuse services to same sex couples on religious/free expression grounds. It also does not say whether any baker may refuse any message to any group as the law now stands.
So the state can claim their interest in protecting the rights of gays is compelling enough to make Christians provide them services in objection to sincerely held beliefs. They just have to treat any appeals that come before them in a neutral manner.
So pretty much I believe this is letting us know that in the long run protected class beats out sincerely held religious or other beliefs. This was a loss for the commission not so much a victory for Phillip’s and his religious freedom. It told the commission what they must do. They did not Phillip’s what he was free to do.
There is a reason why sodomites and their allies oppose state religious freedom laws because they know without those the argument of compelling state interest vs religious freedom will almost always prevail.
We take what we can but don’t think this is a victory.
They didn’t say only in that timeframe. Saying that the timeframe, when homesexual “marriage” was not legal in Colorado, lends credence to his claim that he believed he had a legal right to refuse to bake the cake, does not mean that once homosexual “marriage” was made legal in Colorado, he no longer had any reason to believe he had a legal right to refuse to bake the cake. They never said homosexual “marriage” being illegal in Colorado was the only reason for his belief. Only that it lent credence to his belief.
They didn’t say it was the reason the ruling is being overturned. They said it was because the State did not give unbiased consideration to Phillips’ religious beliefs. They did not say there were no other reasons to overturn it. I wish they had gone further, but the fact they didn’t, doesn’t mean they disagree with any further defense of Phillips.
They ruled in favor of Phillips, on a narrow set of circumstances. They did not rule against him on other circumstances. They simply didn’t rule on those circumstances.