The dissenters are just saying that they existing law doesn't cover gays and LGTB etc. Not that are against it. Meaning the court cannot make, but just interpre

The dissenters are just saying that they existing law doesn't cover gays and LGTB etc. Not that are against it. Meaning the court cannot make, but just interpret, laws, and so on. But no doubt if the law was passed today it would include "sexual orientation"