The Supreme Court ruled narrowly Monday for a Christian baker who refused to make a same-sex wedding cake, deciding that he was a victim of religious bias on the part of the state's civil rights commission.
But the 7-2 ruling, written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, stressed the importance of maintaining equal rights for gays and lesbians.
Here are some hot takes and analysis of the ruling from around the web:
Supreme Court sidesteps major ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop case [Washington Blade]
From the outlet that describes itself as "America's LGBT news source."
Here are 5 important things you need to know about today’s Supreme Court ruling in the gay wedding cake case [RawStory]
Read this for a bullet-point breakdown of the ruling's implications. Bullet No. 1: "The ruling does not allow discrimination against same-sex couples, LGBT people, or anyone else. It changes no laws and sets no precedents."
3 years after same-sex marriage ruling, protections for LGBT families undermined [USA Today]
Reporter Susan Miller breaks down the backlash to the Supreme Court's 2015 decision to legalize gay marriage. Since then, states have added barriers for LGBT couples to adopt, win parental rights in divorce cases, and use their spouses' employment benefits.
In baker’s case, neither side has much reason to rejoice [The Washington Post]
Columnist Jennifer Rubin: "Both proponents of gay rights and defenders of Christians who refuse to provide certain services to gay couples will, no doubt, read much more into the decision handed down today than is warranted."
A win for Masterpiece Cakeshop but it ain’t over yet [Fox News]
Columnist Todd Starnes: "Monday’s ruling should give some comfort to Christian business owners who primarily service the wedding industry – gay rights do not necessarily trump everyone else’s rights. ... But the fight goes on and we must be watchmen on the wall, forever diligent in the battle to protect and defend our nation’s first freedom."
The Supreme Court's missed opportunity in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case [Washington Examiner]
Attorney Gabriel Malor: "Instead of resolving the broad legal questions, the majority seized on two peculiarities of this particular case to reverse the Colorado Court of Appeals decision punishing the baker."