I do fear this case will overly encourage the anti-GLTBQ, phony religious people and affect future cases before the SCOTUS on gender rights and other discrimination issues.
I agree. In it's opinion, though, the court does attempt to stress that the ruling is limited to the specific facts as presented in the record and the application of the competing constitutional principles raised by this particular case. I think the court recognizes that the scope of this opinion will have to be flushed out through future litigation that will test limitations of the ruling.
I do definitely see a flood gate opening where many social conservatives will take this opportunity to rely on this opinion to promote their beliefs that they should be able to discriminate on a number of bases beyond that of LGBTQ and the ground that to provide a service to the person/persons would compel them to act in contrevention on their religious beliefs.
Now, the facts of this case and the fundamental basis for the Court's position today is that the cake shop owner successfully argued that it was the unique nature of his artistic talent in making the cakes he makes that make this form of service one that he should be allowed to offer only to particular people in accordance with his religious beliefs. This is one way the opinion will be said in the future to be very limited. Future plaintiffs will have to show that the service being denied them on a discriminatory basis was one that is not particularly unique or artistic in nature so as to take the service out of the realm of "public" for the purpose of the constitutional "equal protection" analysis. In my experience, the more localized and personalized a discriminatory act is, the less likely a court will find it justified to interfere with the actor's constitutional rights (whatever the might be given the claim that is raised). Constitutional protections are there, for the most part, to restrict government overreach into the private affairs, actions, and conduct of citizens. It is only under extreme circumstances that the courts will intervene when purely private disputes arise regarding the provision of goods and services. It is typically only when the dispute implicates civil rights protections afforded by federal statute and when the actor's conduct had the likelihood of burdening a large number of citizens who are similarly situated, or when the discriminatory conduct or it's effects could reasonably be attributed to the government that the court will find it more justifiable to intercede.
So basically, as in most cases that are addressed by the courts, whether a particular opinion will or will not affect future similar scenarios down the road, as we lawyers find ourselves saying almost on a daily basis, it depends.