If you haven’t heard already, you will. The Supreme Court has issued an opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and it was not in favor of the left. As Jenny North mentioned in her piece this morning, the ruling was only a win on process, and the decision was hardly a win for free speech and free association. The Court ruled 7-2 that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission didn’t give bakery owner Jack Phillips a fair hearing when it publicly humiliated him and compared his religious beliefs to slavery and the Holocaust.

…Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.

[…]

That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.

I’m no lawyer, but in plain English, this means that the Commission violated Phillips’ constitutional rights with its open hostility toward his faith, and therefore the panel’s decision, that was supposed to be fair and neutral toward the actual faith, was compromised.

One would have thought, from the epic amount of DERP on my social media feeds, that the Court had committed Kristallnacht against gay people in this country, judging from the media reporting about the decision.

Meanwhile, my friends on the right began to screech in unison that the media characterized the 7-2 win as a “narrow” one, because narrative or something!

None of my friends bothered to actually read the decision, which was neither a win for civil liberties, nor a dismemberment of anti-discrimination protections for gays.

A high school friend of mine, who just happens to be gay, first blasted out his heartbreak at the decision, but quickly edited his post after having read what the decision is really about – the behavior of the government panel and its public lack of neutrality and active disdain toward the religious beliefs of an individual. “The media portrayal and the rush to get the story out aren’t helping the situation,” he told me privately.

I congratulated him on being one of the few normal people on my social medial feed.

The media is not helping, because the media is clueless.

While my conservative friends choose to view the mediots’ inability to distinguish between a “narrow” decision and a decision that is “narrow” in scope to malice and an attempt to spin the truth, I choose to believe that today’s so-called “journalists” and their editors are ignorant.

These idiots with keyboards don’t understand how firearms work, and yet they happily publish whatever power-hungry politicians happen to tell them on guns, regardless of how ignorant.

These drooling ignorami don’t understand economics – they’re bored by economics, in fact, and they admit it – so they studiously ignore positive economic indicators, especially if they reflect well on the current President.

Even though they’re college educated, these mediots couldn’t point out Iran on a map, so they rely on government (like so many others these days) to explain foreign policy to them and allow them to wallow in their own ignorance like pigs in shit.

Two years ago, Obama’s obedient, obsequious lackey Ben Rhodes boldly admitted that today’s journalists are simply drooling toddlers who are there to be fed whatever information politicians with agendas decide they need to know.

As she explained how the process worked, I was struck by how naïve the assumption of a “state of nature” must seem in an information environment that is mediated less and less by experienced editors and reporters with any real prior knowledge of the subjects they write about. “People construct their own sense of source and credibility now,” she said. “They elect who they’re going to believe.” For those in need of more traditional-seeming forms of validation, handpicked Beltway insiders like Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic and Laura Rozen of Al-Monitor helped retail the administration’s narrative. “Laura Rozen was my RSS feed,” Somanader offered. “She would just find everything and retweet it.”

Translation: today’s journalists are sub-cretinous fuckwits who are to be fed information, which they then regurgitate like good little minions, so given this fact, why the hell would anyone expect them to know the difference between a “narrow ruling” and the “narrow scope” of a ruling?

I think we give these guys too much credit. Much like many other recent college graduates, these so-called “media professionals” are little more than a barely coherent typing pool, ready to barf up whatever they’re given by their sources without much thought to accuracy or content. The source is the expert, so why would they bother actually doing any fact checking work?

Or doing math, for that matter? Or knowing how many Supreme Court justices there are?

I cannot possibly attribute the media’s utter lack of research skills, critical thinking, and reasoning to malice. Not when overly-zealous, lazy, ignorant sacks of ass such as this exist in the world.

Trump doesn’t need to attack the media. They regularly shoot themselves in the feet all on their own.

But if you still blindly trust news reports, even after the history of complete incompetence they have exhibited over the years, because you’re too lazy and apathetic to check primary sources, the fault is yours and you should be called out for it.