The Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, in one of the most closely watched cases of the term. In a 7-2 decision, the justices set aside a Colorado court ruling against the baker -- while stopping short of deciding the broader issue of whether a business can refuse to serve gay and lesbian people. The opinion was penned by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often the swing justice in tight cases. The narrow ruling here focused on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips. "The Commission's hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion.
Fox News Radio's Guy Benson & Marie Harf sat down with FNC Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano to get reaction on the decision.
Overall Reaction: This was a political compromise achieved classically through the skills of Chief Justice John Roberts. How else could you get Stephen Bryer and Elena Kagen to go along with this, but by limiting it in scope to just the facts in this case. Because the Chief Justice always thinks in terms of legacy and credibility. To him a 5-4 decision along ideological lines would impair both legacy and credibility. However by doing that in my view he just kicked the can down the road. Sooner or later this will come back. (2:00)
On using this case for other cases: Supreme Courts change all the time. Somebody could cite this in a state court or cite it in a lower federal court as a basis for this kind of behavior and a Judge may go along with it not withstanding the Supreme Court saying it's no precedent. For example look at Bush v. Gore. It says only this case and non-precedentional, but cited hundreds of times by lower federal courts and state courts. (7:00)
Will this couple OR another couple will put a case forward that the Supreme Court will have to eventually rule on the substance underlying this issue and not just the specifics of this case?: Yes! I think so and I hope so. (8:00)