Masterpiece?

Dear Reader,

It is fitting that the new Supreme Court ruling called Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission should have been decided during Pride Month.  Like most Americans, all I knew about the case was the mainstream media pronouncement, “The Baker Won.”  Well, not so fast.

I turned to Ann Northrup and Andy Humm (as I do every week) at Gay USA—www.gayusatv.org.  And you should too.  Their skillful coverage of the case is currently the homepage episode.  In future, it will be indexed by date: 6/6/18.  Don’t miss it.  They turned to James Esseks of the ACLU’s LGBT and HIV/AIDS Project.  Because he knows his stuff.

Notice that this case had very little to do with the original litigants, Charlie Craig and David Mullens.  They are the couple who tried to order a wedding cake from the Cakeshop and were refused because they are a gay couple.  Their suit in Colorado courts was successful, but then the baker, Jack Philips, counter-sued, claiming that his religious rights had been violated.  This is heady stuff, constitutionally and practically.

Philips lost in two levels of Colorado courts, hence the Supreme Court case, supported by a dangerous (in my opinion) right-wing group called The Alliance Defending Freedom.  Religious freedom, that is.  Meaning, they believe (in my opinion) that people should be free to do all manner of hateful and illegal things in the name of faith.  And here is where the recent case gets really interesting.  Because the court ruled–seven-to-two–not that the baker has a right to discriminate, but that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was insensitive to the dignity of his religious beliefs to the point that they used disparaging language and, therefore, discriminatory behavior.  Or something to that effect.

So, “The Baker Won?”  Sort of.  On a technicality.  But the Constitution holds.  One hopes.  And discrimination is still illegal.  Oddly, the Right Wing achieved a major PR victory with the simplicity of that “The Baker Won” news coverage, and yet they failed miserably to achieve a much-coveted ruling that would gut anti-discrimination legislation.

And how about Dave and Charlie?  They were hung out to dry.  James Esseks called their treatment a travesty of justice.  I agree.  But I hope they take courage from the fact that they already won three times, and that this case only questions the procedures of the third court.  Do reason and the rule of law still hold sway in our land?  I hope so.

Bruce