It's the intent of what was presided over. It's limited to this particular case and not intended as a sweeping judgment.

Similar to the Bush V Gore in that it was "narrowly applied" and not for a wider piece.

But I think (don't quote me on this) that it's because the SCOTUS said this ruling only applies to this one case, since Colorado didn't show non-bias when they made their decision in a lower court?

I don't quite understand, honestly.

From what I have read and heard, the decision is purposely written in a vary narrow context that would be difficult to apply as precedent to future decisions or rulings by lower courts.

I don't think this will have "Citizen's United"-like ramifications.

saying a state commission had violated the Constitution’s protection of religious freedom in ruling against the baker, Jack Phillips, who had refused to create a custom wedding cake for a gay couple.

“The neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection.”

The Supreme Court’s decision, which turned on the commission’s asserted hostility to religion, strongly reaffirmed protections for gay rights and left open the possibility that other cases raising similar issues could be decided differently.

“The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts,” Justice Kennedy wrote, “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.”'>>>

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html?

But that doesn't make me feel better. In the Bush v Gore case, it was just an excuse to steal that election.

The decision is not broadly applicable to other cases. The Supreme Court didn't roll back gay rights. They decided that there were issues with this particular case.

It is a narrow ruling not based on votes, that would be a narrow victory, but based on what the court actually ruled on.

There was a huge issue before the courts.

They didn’t decide on the biggest, broadest parts of the question before them.

Instead, they only ruled that the procedures followed by the state were unconstitutional in that they ruled the bakers didn’t get a fair hearing because they said the hearing was biased.

That means they didn’t say the ruling was wrong, only that because the process used to reach it was inproper that it was overturned.

The state can go back and do it again with a process they seem to be more “unbiased” and reach the same conclusion and it’s fine.

So the ruling is “narrow” because instead of answering the large, overarching question before them they picked one tiny bit that didn’t answer the big question and only reversed the ruling based on that.

our gerrymandering case is left...and I hope there is nothing NARROW about it...

to how he was treated by the Colorado Commission. It's not a broad decision on the entire Constitutional merits of discrimination cases.


This seems to have caused a lot of confusion on twitter. Even Morning Joe is claiming the ruling wasn't voted narrowly with a 7-2 decision.

TL;DR - The facts of the case are ruled on a narrow basis. The vote count was not narrow.

Both sides are reacting as if its a sweeping decision right now and every level of the media, including the low level, high biased, social media industry, is making a lot of inaccurate hay out it right now.

*sigh* We're never going to get anywhere if the electorate stays so ill-informed.