The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an otherwise lawful exercise of the government’s power because the officials who carried it out had made hostile public remarks toward a person’s religious beliefs.

No, the justices didn’t strike down President Donald Trump’s travel ban that targeted several Muslim-majority countries. A decision in that case is still pending before the court’s term wraps up later this month. Instead, the court issued a judgment in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which focused on whether the government could penalize a baker who refused on religious grounds to sell wedding cakes to gay couples.

The Masterpiece Cakeshop case looked like it would force the justices to choose between a Christian baker’s religious faith and a gay couple’s right to buy goods and services without facing discrimination. But in a 7–2 decision, the court resolved the dispute on narrower grounds by focusing on biased statements made by civil-rights commissioners in Colorado. In doing so, the justices ruled in favor of the baker without setting a broader precedent on the underlying matter.

“Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State’s obligation of religious neutrality,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.

Kennedy’s feat of legal legerdemain means that the Supreme Court has punted on deciding whether anti-discrimination laws that protect gay Americans must yield to a business owner’s religious tenets. For now, the question is one of moral and intellectual consistency: Will the justices hold the president to the same standard in the travel-ban case that they held Colorado’s civil-rights commissioners to in Masterpiece Cakeshop?