Actually, Conservatives LOST the Cake Ruling

Let's put things in the proper perspective, as does Mark Pulliam.

Kennedy, the single most pernicious member of SCOTUS, handed 'conservatives' a loss in the cake-shop decision.  It was not a "narrow" victory at all.

...As has been widely-reported (this case being the subject of the nation’s undivided attention, after all), Kennedy did not reach the merits of the case and in effect disqualified the Colorado Civil Rights Commission—which had ruled against Phillips—due to derogatory, anti-religious statements made by some commissioners in the course of their ruling. Among other things, some commissioners called Phillips’ religious objections “despicable.” Kennedy made a fuss about these same statements during oral argument in December, prompting my prior article for American Greatness,  “Justice Kennedy’s Too-Late Lament for Tolerance.” As I remarked on the AG blog, “Justice Kennedy would make a lousy poker player. He revealed his hand during oral argument on December 5. He and some of the other Obergefell majority (Kagan and Breyer) were embarrassed by the blatant anti-religious bias of the Colorado agency, so they ruled in favor of the baker, Jack Phillips, to disassociate themselves from such intolerance.”  

Thus, the title of this article: “Having Your Cake and Eating It, Too.” Kennedy and some of the other activists who joined the 5-to-4 decision in Obergefell (namely, Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer) wanted to bask in the spotlight of “enlightened” elite opinion that applauds the invention of made-up constitutional protection of gay rights, without having to face the opprobrium that would have ensued if the Court ruled against Jack Phillips, the symbolic Everyman. (The Wall Street Journal gets a runner-up award for best title, with “The Supreme Court’s Half-Baked Cake.”)...

SCOTUS will keep up the fantasy that their Positive Law will overcome the Laws of Nature for as long as possible, of course; but they also know they're on extremely thin ice.

This is how they got Trump--and Trump is a moderate. 

None of this is new.  C S Lewis' inaugural speech at Cambridge more or less described Congress and SCOTUS, mutatis mutandis:

....[Lewis] was thinking out a theory that became a core of his inaugural address “De Discriptione Temporum” in Cambridge on Nov. 29, 1954: “Nunc enim non erubescunt de adulterio, proditione, perjurio, furto, certisque flagitiis quae non dico Christianos doctores, sed ipsi pagani et barbari reprobaverunt — For now they do not blush at adultery, treachery, perjury, theft and other crimes, which I will not say Christian doctors, but the pagans and barbarians have themselves denounced”...

Yea, well, Justice Kennedy; when those pagans and barbarians meet you, that Second Amendment will come in handy.