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.
Decision only applies to Phillips.