Before we get too excited about the recent Supreme Court ruling concerning baker Jack Phillips in the Masterpiece Cake Shop case, let’s make sure we are clear on the details.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that a Colorado cake maker, Jack Phillips, did not have to bake a cake for same-sex wedding. Christians rejoiced. Conservatives cheered. I think someone even gave Donald Trump credit. But before we lose our minds with excitement or despair, let’s make sure we understand the scope of this “narrow” ruling.

Many criticized the media for calling it a “narrow” ruling after the 7-2 decision was handed down. Some called the media out as biased attempting to downplay the decision. This only shows that we often read just a headline and assume we know the context of the article. By definition, the ruling is in fact, narrow.

The decision impacts, at this point, primarily Jack Phillips and the fine levied against him by the Colorado Human Rights Commission. The Supreme Court effectively vacated the state’s decision to punish Jack for attempting to live by his sincerely held religious beliefs. The court also made clear that this decision doesn’t pertain to other cases, and that those cases would need to proceed through the courts and could possibly be adjudicated differently.

Joe Carter, writing at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission noted:

“Despite a strong majority of justices voting in support of the decision, the implications for religious liberty are rather narrow in scope, and it is difficult to know how it will affect similar cases. ‘In this case the adjudication concerned a context that may well be different going forward in the respects noted above. However later cases raising these or similar concerns are resolved in the future, for these reasons the rulings of the Commission and of the state court that enforced the Commission’s order must be invalidated. The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.’”

Michael W. McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution made this point very clear:

“Justice Kennedy’s opinion in favor of the Christian baker, for a 7-2 majority, was scrupulously cautious in refusing to comment on possible future cases or broader implications. But no one should mistake the principle. If a state recognizes the right of shopkeepers to refuse service on the basis of secular principles, it cannot punish others who refuse service on the basis of religious principles. The case might be different if all bakers were required to bake all cakes expressing all ideas—but Colorado did not have such a rule.”

Given the fact that Colorado had separately allowed other bakers to refuse to bake cakes with other messages, the Supreme Court held that Jack was treated differently and the law was not applied equally. This is important. The court is making clear that if a Muslim baker has the right to refuse making a pork sausage roll; and if a African American baker can refuse baking a KKK themed cake, then a Christian baker can refuse to bake a same-sex wedding cake.

Greg Stohr, writing at Bloomberg, reported Justice Kennedy’s recognition of the concerns raised by both sides in this case:

“Kennedy said both sides in the case raised legitimate concerns. ‘Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth,’ he wrote. ‘For that reason the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights.’ He added: ‘At the same time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.’”

That last statement is very important. In that statement Justice Kennedy is reiterating the supremacy of the First Amendment that protects the speech of all Americans. Not only is our right to speak protected, but our right not to speak, or be compelled to speak is also protected.

Justice Thomas, writing his own concurring opinion, echoed the supremacy of The First Amendment:

“Because the Court’s decision vindicates Phillips’ right to free exercise, it seems that religious liberty has lived to fight another day. But, in future cases, the freedom of speech could be essential to preventing Obergefellfrom being used to ‘stamp out every vestige of dissent’ and ‘vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.”’

One report carried Justice Kennedy’s condemnation of Colorado for not showing tolerance or respect to Jack Phillips’ religious conviction concerning marriage:

“On behalf of the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that ‘the record here demonstrates that the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ case was neither tolerant nor respectful of his religious beliefs.’”

This was echoed by Jack’s lawyer, Kristen Waggoner, when she said: “The court was right to condemn that. Tolerance and respect for good-faith differences of opinion are essential in a society like ours. This decision makes clear that the government must respect Jack’s beliefs about marriage.”

While I appreciate the ruling and am thankful that the court recognized the unfair treatment of Jack Phillips, I want more. I want the court to recognize the principles of human productivity and the right of every business owner to discriminate.

Every person has the right to be productive. In order to be free in our productivity, we have the right not to be frustrated in our endeavor to be productive. This means we have the right to be free from government coercion in our business. Attempts by the government to limit productivity is a sign of oppression, not freedom. The court could have signaled a broader victory for all Americans by recognizing the right to be productive without interference by the government.

Furthermore, every day people discriminate. We decide who we will and will not do business with. The freedom to enter a contractual relationship with a client (or a business owner) is fundamental to real freedom. Would the government tell a gay baker he must bake a cake denouncing same-sex marriage? I doubt it. If not, the gay baker is more free than the Christian baker. But if the gay baker has the right to discriminate based on his sincerely held beliefs, so does the Christian baker.

While the Supreme Court took a good-albeit small – step in the right direction with this ruling, I remain cautiously optimistic. Perhaps the court will further elaborate in future cases. For now, it’s enough to be thankful that people are more free today.