The U.S. Supreme Court Monday morning handed down a ruling in the case brought by a Colorado baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, citing his Christian beliefs.
Many initial reactions from pro- and anti-gay observers and groups have been wide ranging, and many have been wrong. (Perhaps most of all, Donald Trump Jr.’s, but more on that later.)
Here are five of the most important things you need to know about the Supreme Court’s ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., et al. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission et al:
1. The ruling does not allow discrimination against same-sex couples, LGBT people, or anyone else. It changes no laws and sets no precedents.
2. The ruling applies to one person only: Jack Phillips, the anti-gay Christian baker. Again, it does not set precedent, it cannot be used by others to discriminate against anyone. Period.
3. The only “person” the ruling is against is the Colorado commission that ruled against the baker – and not because of the commission’s overall conclusion, that Phillips engaged in unlawful discrimination. The Supreme Court’s 7-2 ruling says that the commission acted with “hostility,” in this one case, against Phillips.
4. The Court’s ruling calls for Americans to find a way to be tolerant towards each other, respecting the rights of gay people and the rights of people of faith. (It does not state those are two opposing groups.)
5. If anything, the Supreme Court’s ruling is in part a win for the LGBT community and supporters of equality. Here’s the key passage from the Court’s majority opinion: “these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”
You will no doubt see huge proclamations of victory from the anti-gay right. If they say anything other than what’s above, chances are good they’re false.
For more, read: “SUPREME COURT HANDS DOWN ANTI-GAY RULING – FOR ONE WEDDING CAKE BAKER.”
The numbers are definitively in: Trump’s tax cuts were an economic dud
The most commonly heard refrain when Donald Trump and the GOP were seeking to pass some version of corporate tax reform went something like this: There are literally trillions of dollars trapped in offshore dollar deposits which, because of America’s uncompetitive tax rates, cannot be brought back home. Cut the corporate tax rate and get those dollars repatriated, thereby unleashing a flood of new job-creating investment in the process. Or so the pitch went.
Trump’s racist outburst contained an accidental truth about the dysfunctional state of America
President Trump often puts thoughtful Americans in the position of choosing whether to concentrate on his racism or stupidity. Since the two mental pathologies typically interlock, the choice is not binary. The latest incident of imbecility from the White House — as almost everyone knows by now — has Trump excoriating four congresswomen (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib), three of whom were born in the United States, to go back to the countries where they came from. Rep. Omar of Minnesota, the only non-native born citizen in the group, arrived in America as a refugee at age 10, and has studied, worked and lived here ever since.Stumbling and sputtering under the blindness of his own hatred and ignorance, Trump might have actually fallen into an honest and accurate assessment of the United States. He not only told the congresswomen to go back to their countries of origin — for three of them that means staying right where they are — but described those places as “broken and crime infested.”
Liz Cheney goes all-in on Trump’s racism: Meet the future of the Republican Party
It's become conventional wisdom among the punditocracy that former South Carolina governor and UN ambassador Nikki Haley is on track to be the first woman Republican presidential nominee. She's one of the few members of the Trump administration to escape with their reputations more or less intact, even having gotten away with publicly disagreeing with the president from time to time and remaining in his good graces.