Thoughts from Mark Randazza:
Ultimately, in this case, nobody really “won.” The baker “wins” because technically he “won.” But, all he “won” was the right to have the charges brought against him without the administrative panel making snarky comments about his religious beliefs.
The cause of gay rights was not advanced at all. And, the real issue here — the First Amendment issue, is not being addressed at all — except in a pretty damn good concurrence by Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch. (Starts on Page 38 of 59) His concurrence is, of course, foreshadowing either the majority or the minority when this case finally comes to a head. Thomas (I believe correctly) says that designing a wedding cake is no mere act of throwing eggs and flour into a bowl – but is full of artistic creativity. Harnessing (or enslaving) an artist to create that which he does not wish to create is a travesty against the First Amendment.
Yes, that is the argument, despite the continuing nonsense about how it was “discriminating against gays” (I got into a Twitter discussion with an idiot about this yesterday). And SCOTUS punted on the underlying issue. It’s not just a travesty against the First Amendment, but tyrannical.
One of the legal team who defended Phillips explains why it’s not as much of a nothingburger as some are saying.