SCOTUS didn't rule in favor of Masterpiece on freedom of religion grounds, they ruled that the Colorado commission didn't exercise religious neutrality. It was an extremely narrow ruling and essentially kicked the problem back to Colorado to fix their commission. This is an important distinction as it results in vastly different outcomes.
Not that this discussion is pivotal to my point but the court wrote that:
>“[T]he Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint.”[0]
Not only is that utterly unclear, it doesn't even make a distinction between "they said something that offended Phillips' religion" and "you can't make/apply laws that are hostile to Phillips' religious viewpoint". I don't think there's a queer person in America that would perceive "vastly different outcomes" from a ruling like that.
