DUD, NOT DYNAMITE, RULING IN CAKE CASE | Why Flowers Are The New Cake | Negative Yelp Reviews Flood Masterpiece Cakeshop
June 5, 2018
LET THEM EAT CAKE!
|ICYMI, the Supreme Court justices decided to have their cake and eat it too yesterday when they came down with a narrow ruling in the big Masterpiece Cakeshop cake. And because SCOTUS news shouldn’t be reserved for the privileged few with a law degree, Teen Vogue is talking to their audience of young people more and more about the Supreme Court. Read a new piece on yesterday’s ruling from yours truly.
DUD, NOT DYNAMITE
|That’s how the Masterpiece ruling is described in the latest from NPR’s Nina Totenberg who explains how the outcome of the case didn’t pack the kind of punch some of us were expecting. She notes that although the majority sided with the baker, JACK PHILLIPS, the decision “was not a roaring defense of business-owners’ right to discriminate in the name of religion.”
IT'S NOT ALWAYS WINNING OR LOSING
|Dominic Holden with Buzzfeed points out that folks on both sides of the cake case are claiming victory, when neither is really right to do so. “Instead, the Supreme Court on Monday gave them a puzzle, with the underlying legal questions unanswered. Both sides were left straining to spin the result as a victory.”
AIN'T OVER YET
|The same-sex couple at the heart of the cake case expressed “shock and disappointment” at yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling. Even so, they were focused on the silver lining. DAVE MULLINS noted, “I think the most important thing for us that we want people to understand is that the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act is still fully in effect in Colorado. Nothing has changed about that. It is still illegal to turn a gay couple away from a business just because of who they are.”
CAKE? CHECK! FLOWERS? CHECK!
|Jane C. Timm with NBC News reports another gay wedding case may be headed for the Supreme Court, but this one is about flowers. “Last year, Washington state’s Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Arlene’s Flowers vs. Washington that Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts, violated state law when she refused to provide flowers for the wedding of two men in 2013, Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed. She appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is deciding whether it will hear the case.”
ED BOARD OVERTURE
|The Editorial Board of the Los Angeles Times is disappointed that SCOTUS ducked the big issues in their cake case ruling, squandering a chance for lasting justice and a firm ruling against discrimination. LAT: “What it should have said is that while Phillips’ beliefs are worthy of respect, they are not a license to engage in discrimination. Despite Phillips’ insistence that his style of cake-making is so artistic and expressive that it deserves protection as free speech, the reality is that his line of work makes him more like a caterer than a speechwriter. While a speechwriter might legitimately refuse to craft a message for a potential client with whom he disagreed, the law has generally required restaurateurs, hairstylists, shopkeepers and other such business people to serve all comers.”
ONE STAR FOR YOU
|In the wake of yesterday’s ruling, the Masterpiece Cakeshop’s Yelp page was flooded with one-star protest reviews accusing the establishment of bigotry and hatred. Whitney Filloon with Eater explains, “While some at least pretend to have tried Masterpiece’s baked goods (one review claims ‘the cakes are dry, the flavors unpleasant, and the decorations lifeless, similar to the owner’s heart’), others skip any such pretense and directly address the bakery’s politics, accusing it of promoting bigotry and hatred.”
SCOTUS VIEWS
Why We All Lost In Supreme Court Same-Sex Wedding Cake Case – Even Conservatives Like Me
USA Today“My side — the socially conservative, evangelical Christian side — supposedly won a major victory Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who declined to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. But it doesn’t feel like a win to me. Yes, the court ruled in defense of religious liberty and freedom of conscience, and those are principles I deeply value. But I can’t help but feel that as Americans, we all lost this case years before today’s decision was handed down.”
Wedding Cake Ruling's Silver Lining For LGBT Rights
The Hill“There is, in fact, a lot for LGBT advocates to celebrate in the opinion. The majority begins its analysis by emphasizing that ‘gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth.’ While people are free to voice moral and religious objections, ‘it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.'”
The Religious Right Didn't Get The Supreme Court Victory It Hoped For. Yet.
The Washington Post“The real reason the Masterpiece Cakeshop case ended without resolving the underlying issues was that Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, is unwilling to restrict the rights of gay people in order to enhance the privileges of conservative Christians. But they’ve got four justices who are. All they need is one more.”
OTHER NEWS
How The Supreme Court (Respectfully) Kicked The Cake Down The Road
CNN“Still, while it is true that the decision did not solve the underlying tensions, by refusing to answer all of the questions presented, the justices defined the parameters of what this debate will look like going forward. And while the court did nothing to undermine the dignity of the LGBT community, it did much to caution all who would argue for tolerance against becoming intolerant themselves. Even if the court may one day draw additional boundaries around religious freedom, it will not do so in the context of disparaging one of humankind’s most valued possessions, and a protected First Amendment right.”
Supreme Court Declines To Hear Baltimore Police Appeal Of $2.3M Judgement In 'Charles Village Rapist' Case
The Baltimore Sun“The U.S. Supreme Court will not consider the Baltimore Police Department’s appeal of a $2.3 million judgment for maliciously prosecuting a homeless man as the ‘Charles Village rapist.’ The Supreme Court announced Monday it had denied the department’s petition to hear the case.”