Yes, the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision was ‘narrow’

On Monday the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in the case of a Colorado baker who was penalized after he refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding, citing his religious objection.

The court ruled 7-2 in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop, holding that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was hostile to the baker because of his religious beliefs. Many conservatives were quick to celebrate the ruling as a victory for religious liberty.

Some also criticized the media for reporting the 7-2 decision as “narrow.”

I am reading about a 7 – 2 vote. Pretty sure that's not narrowly… At least 2 dem leaning justices must have agreed. https://t.co/vOjX0mOHPf

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) June 4, 2018

7-2 hockey score = blow out
7-2 baseball score = not even close
7-2 #Scotus ruling = narrow?
When progressive judges flip… that's not narrow.

— Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) June 4, 2018

The Ruling from SCOTUS: 7 to 2 vote. @ap wrote this as a "narrow decision." 5-4 is narrow, 7-2 is not.

— Bill Hemmer (@BillHemmer) June 4, 2018

But as CR senior editor Daniel Horowitz and others have explained, the ruling itself, not the split of justices, is narrow and does not resolve the controversy over constitutional protections for free exercise of religion vs. anti-discrimination laws.

Folks, this opinion is insanely narrow and the fight against religious liberty and the codification of rainbow jihad as the religion of the land has only begun. We need legislation pushing back. Yes, it could have been worse, but this is hardly reason to celebrate.

— Daniel Horowitz (@RMConservative) June 4, 2018

The word "narrow" is correct in the reporting on the bakery. They didn't say a baker can avoid making the cake. They basically said religious freedom is a thing, you have to consider it, and Colorado didn't. It's narrow in its legal scope. (Which is why it was 7-2).

— STU BURGUIERE (@WorldOfStu) June 4, 2018

Narrow refers to the legal precedent it sets https://t.co/2mMIotYCM9

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) June 4, 2018

This is not helpful. Narrow has nothing to do with the number of justices. A unanimous decision can also be a narrow ruling. You don't have to be a legal expert to know how to use Google. https://t.co/dnHZKr2kDY

— Meg Kinnard (@MegKinnardAP) June 4, 2018

Ah, so the holding is narrow. (Haven't read it yet.) But man, that wording is going to confuse a ton of people.

— Jeff B. (@EsotericCD) June 4, 2018

The 7-2 ruling was focused on this case, and did not address larger question of whether First Amendment protects providers of wedding and other services who have cited religious and free-speech objections when refusing to serve gay and lesbian customers. https://t.co/tekQzuq2An

— NBC Out (@NBCOUT) June 4, 2018

Don’t be confused. The decision is narrow in the sense that it does not answer the question of whether an individual with religious convictions opposed to gay marriage may decline to serve a gay wedding.