So, this is the spin:

Limbaugh says it well:

“The reason they’re trying to say it’s narrow is that the court’s ruling today did have a lot to do with the way the baker was treated by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. They called him a Nazi. They said he was a Holocaust denier. They gave him the usual deranged, insane left-wing insults at the hearing at the Colorado Civil Rights Commission on this dispute, whether he should have to bake a cake for a gay wedding. He said he didn’t want to, it violated his religious beliefs.

And the court said we can’t have this kind of decision-making. We can’t have this man’s religious rights denigrated in this way by the Civil Rights Commission. So in a sense, the ruling was not constitutional, but, folks, to tell you how important this is and how big it is, you have to look at what would have happened if it had gone the other way.

If the court had ruled that this baker was required to bake this cake for a gay couple in violation of his constitutional protections, the freedom to practice his religion, if he had lost this, you don’t think the left would be out there saying, “Well, it’s not that big a deal. It’s just pretty narrow.” They would be dancing on graves right now. This is a huge deal and don’t let anybody tell you it isn’t. The left is just trying to provide solace to its lunatic, deranged base and to keep them from feeling entirely, totally defeated.

You know, where you listen to the left talk about how this is very narrow and not that encompassing. Imagine how you would feel today if it’d gone the other way, if by a 7-2 vote in the Supreme Court they had ruled that Christian religious freedom essentially doesn’t exist or didn’t in this case.

I mean, the left would have been on this, and they would have been marching into every religious business they could find and challenging it, starting late this morning, certainly early this afternoon. They would have been out there doing everything they could to maximize this. So, as far as that — even though it’s just an individual case — the Supreme Court stood up for religious liberty, First Amendment in a major, major way.”

Exactly so.

This started out with leftists trying to change the culture by means of law and government. They could have gone to another baker. They did not, for one simple reason… because that wouldn’t have served their original purpose.

They failed.

One Response to “Narrow?”

  1. The gist of the problem is that the Supreme Court creates rights out of whole cloth and then has a fit when trying to square their version of the Constitution with the real article.

    This decision had little to do with one baker in Colorado, and a lot to do with a state agency abusing the Constitution in an attempt to promote their pet theories.  Bottom line, at least for one case, the government can not ignore the Constitution in the excuse of defending same.  I think Fearless Leader Mueller should take heed.