Most people are misreading this decision. It specifically says that the court sided with him because at the time he refused to bake the cake same-sex “marriage” had not been legalized by the Supreme Court. The decision applies to him and no one else. Any Christian baker that refused to bake a cake since the decision came down is out of luck. Bake it or be ran out of business.
That's not true at all. The court noted this in commenting on the good faith nature of the bakers position but did NOT rest the case on it. The court approvingly cited other cases since the Obergfel decision which when FOR the baker in these situations. This case is much broader than the left is admitting. The claims of "narrow" are claims by the left in that they are trying to limit its application. Don't buy into it.
Depressing if true - can you cite language ?