The Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission Supreme Court case opinion created a large outrage among the LGBTQ+ community as well as social justice warriors. Liberals and left-leaning news organizations started using their media outlets to spin and outright lie about the case itself. They frame this as a SCOTUS court case about whether the actions of a baker are constitutionally allowed when this is not the case!
TLDR; In this court case, the baker sued the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. SCOTUS said that the Commission violated the baker's free exercise of religion and that the Commission lacked religious neutrality. It did not rule on the merit or legality of the actions of the Baker.
SCOTUS didn't say that the bakery or the baker could discriminate against homosexuals. All discrimination in Colorado is illegal under CADA. “It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation.”
In 1993, it was decided by SCOTUS: "The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices." SCOTUS's opinion in the bakery case was only that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not afford the baker "to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case."
In the opinion, SCOTUS actually strengthened religious liberty and civil rights; it stated: "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." It reiterated again from the Obergefell case, "the First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths." but adds "Nevertheless, while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law."
I'd encourage you to read the opinion. (Link below). You'll find that rulings tend to be hyped up or framed in a certain way by media sources.
