But this isn't what the Supreme Court rules at all. It ruled that in handling the case, the Colorado commission had been biased against the defendant; the ruling specifically stated that Colorado "can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services... the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion"
The ruling was also very specific in that the case was not to set precedent and the ruling absolutely does not permit businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ.
No, they didn't. Their ruling rested largely on how hostile the Colorado administrative agency acted in that particular case. They made no ruling on the larger questions, which is how they got Kagan and Breyer on board with the majority opinion.
That's not true. They ruled that the baker got a mulligan because government officials didn't show enough respect to his religious beliefs. It is still illegal and there's another case against him right now over this behavior.
No, it absolutely did not overturn protected status of LGBTQ. To quote Justice Kennedy, Colorado "can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services... the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion".
The ruling was also very specific in that the case was not to set precedent and the ruling absolutely does not permit businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ.