Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission was an interesting case, and in a lot of ways, I’m happy it came down the way it did because it could have been a lot worse.
I had been debating about this a few months ago, and I came to the conclusion that the only way this could end up being anything was if it was ruled very narrowly, which it was, but I wasn’t expecting them to limit the scope to this one case. I was debating this with another fellow artist who was understandably concerned that if the Supreme Court ruled that an artist can be compelled to create a piece of art (cake or otherwise) for someone with views that you don’t agree with, then what’s to stop an artist being forced to draw propaganda for a neo-Nazi? It’s an extreme example (especially in the way that I would never equate neo-Nazis with LGBTQ, nor was the fellow artist), but under the idea of equal protection of the law, these are the kind of extreme “what-ifs” you have to consider.
I took the other side of it, based on the line of questioning from the Court, that the difference would come down to protective classes. Turns out, we were both wrong, but the fact that the concern of lasting precedent being used as a way of legalize discrimination played such a huge role in this, it gives me some hope for the current state of the Supreme Court as it currently exists. Not blinding hope, but not outright despair either.
But as interesting as this case is, it’s also a huge reminder that elections have consequences. And the makeup of the court is a direct reflection of who has power in the other two branches of government, which reminds me that today is voting day!
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission was an interesting case, and in a lot of ways, I’m happy it came down the way it did because it could have been a lot worse.
I had been debating about this a few months ago, and I came to the conclusion that the only way this could end up being anything was if it was ruled very narrowly, which it was, but I wasn’t expecting them to limit the scope to this one case. I was debating this with another fellow artist who was understandably concerned that if the Supreme Court ruled that an artist can be compelled to create a piece of art (cake or otherwise) for someone with views that you don’t agree with, then what’s to stop an artist being forced to draw propaganda for a neo-Nazi? It’s an extreme example (especially in the way that I would never equate neo-Nazis with LGBTQ, nor was the fellow artist), but under the idea of equal protection of the law, these are the kind of extreme “what-ifs” you have to consider.
I took the other side of it, based on the line of questioning from the Court, that the difference would come down to protective classes. Turns out, we were both wrong, but the fact that the concern of lasting precedent being used as a way of legalize discrimination played such a huge role in this, it gives me some hope for the current state of the Supreme Court as it currently exists. Not blinding hope, but not outright despair either.
But as interesting as this case is, it’s also a huge reminder that elections have consequences. And the makeup of the court is a direct reflection of who has power in the other two branches of government, which reminds me that today is voting day!