 |  |  |
| 0:00 | -1:03:52 |
On today’s not-quite-emergency pod, Sarah and David have thoughts to share about the Supreme Court’s orders from last Friday. David discusses the ins and outs of the Arlene’s Flowers case, where the court denied an appeal from a flower shop owner that refused to design arrangements for a same-sex wedding, and analyzes how Supreme Court justices don’t always rule the way people predict. Then Sarah goes into a slew of other orders from the court on qualified immunity for university admins, religious liberty for the Amish, defamation against public figures, and eminent domain. Plus, David and Sarah review a ruling from a Minneapolis judge that throws a wrench into “defund the police.”
Show Notes:
What a great discussion on the cake-maker court cases. As someone who considers the right for gay couples to marry to be a beyond-obvious civil rights issue (consenting adults should be able to marry whoever they want, full stop), I generally have very little sympathy for people who feel otherwise. They have the right to their views, of course, but in my opinion their views have caused significant harm to many, many gay couples, including many people I care deeply about.
That said, cake-maker cases have been complicated for me. I have a huge problem with the government forcing anyone to make art or perform a service to advance a position they object to. I also am strongly in favor of protections for minorities from discrimination based on who they are, and I've never been able to figure out where to draw a line in my own mind in a way that doesn't just arbitrarily serve my own opinions on what I think people ought to do. Fall too far on one side and people are forced to do things against their beliefs. Fall too far on the other side and you open up a huge Pandora's box of potential harms against minorities becoming much easier to perpetrate. I want a solid, principled line that applies to everyone in all situations regardless of their opinion on the matter. To be honest, given the facts of these particular cases I've found myself leaning somewhat towards the cake-makers, but as a strong supporter of gay rights that brings me no satisfaction either. These are really, really complicated issues for me, and it was great to hear a conversation that acknowledged that complexity.
I had two thoughts when listening to the really excellent treatment of Arlene's Flowers on this pod:
First, I tend to disagree with David that flower arrangement should typically fall in the category of protected artistic expression. He used the metaphor of an artist painting an image of the confederate flag, which is pretty clear cut artistic expression. But my understanding of this case is that the shop "refused to beautify a same-sex wedding" with their flower arrangements, which sounds a lot more to me like a business denying service on the basis of a protected characteristic than it does an artist refusing to do a piece of art. I could see if the couple wanted a flower arrangement that spelled out a message or formed an icon that was counter to the belief of the flower arranger, then that would fall in the same bucket as the muralist painting a confederate flag. But if the flowers are simply being arranged in an aesthetic way, I don't personally see this as compelled speech. I have a particularly low opinion of people claiming their religion forces them to hate or discriminate against others, so that colors my reading of these facts.
Second, I feel very fortunate to have a resource like this podcast. It is so rare for a media group to respect their audience enough to explain the facts of a complicated topic without overly simplifying them, then discuss their own perspective on the facts based on their ideology, and also be really entertaining! In particular, your analysis of Cosby last week was very clarifying at a time when almost everyone was talking about the outcome instead of how the outcome came to be.
PS: Sarah, I highly recommend this baby boat if you don't have one. My 8 month old loves it in the pool: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N52SYAZ/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_PA3HEVJMAKZ953AZ75E2