It was not. It was decided on a the grounds that the tribunal was overtly biased and ruled inconsistently with past determinations. No one should take any comfort from this decision whatsoever.
And the basis of the bias was a refusal to consider the free exercise rights of the baker. The court clearly ruled that free exercise was implicated and even established a balancing test on how free exercise considerations must be considered.
Agreed. This commission will just be less “blatant” when it comes back.