It seems that lawsuits are never simple, and there are always at least two sides.

The latest example to catch my attention is the case of Baker and Linsley v. Wildflower Inn. In this case, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is working with a lesbian couple, Kate Baker and Ming Linsley, to sue a Vermont inn for refusing to host their wedding reception.

According to some case background on the ACLU website, the Wildflower Inn seemed very eager to host the reception until the innkeepers learned that the happy couple are two lesbians. Never mind the fact that same-sex marriage has been legal in Vermont since 2009; it appeared that the innkeepers wanted no part of it on their property.

The ACLU quotes an email from an employee of the inn who had been working with the mother of one of the brides on preliminary arrangements: “After our conversation, I checked in with my Innkeepers and unfortunately due to their personal feelings, they do not host gay receptions at our facility.”

And this wasn’t the first time, allegedly. According to the ACLU’s official complaint, filed July 19, “during the same 12-month period in which the Meeting and Events Director refused to allow Ming and Kate to hold their reception at the resort, the Meeting and Events Director also turned away at least two other same-sex couples pursuant to the Wildflower Inn’s no-gay-reception policy.”

Imagine the public outrage if interracial couples were treated this way in 2011!

According to the ACLU, “The Vermont Human Rights Law has prohibited public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation for nearly 20 years.”

And, notes the ACLU, “This case is about discrimination, plain and simple. When a business that is open to the public refuses to serve two people and their guests solely because the two people are a same sex couple, it is no different than restaurants not serving individuals because they were black, or other businesses keeping out women or Jews. It is discrimination and it is illegal.”

But, as I noted above, there are always at least two sides to every lawsuit. So I called the Wildflower Inn. I expected to hear, “No comment.” Instead, I ended up speaking with a woman who wanted to talk, albeit reluctantly.

When she answered the phone at the inn, I introduced myself and explained that I am a writer in Philadelphia hoping to hear their side of the story. The woman (who did not give her name) said it was all a misunderstanding.

She went on to say that the Wildflower Inn employs a number of gay people, and that numerous gay guests have stayed there in the past and have returned for repeat visits.

Whey then, I asked, were Ming and Kate turned away?

I did not get a straight answer to that question (pun unintended). But the woman on the phone seemed to imply it was the decision of the Meeting and Events Director, who had allegedly not consulted the owners at all.

I’ll leave it to the lawyers on both sides to drag out the real facts. And I’ll leave it to the courts to ultimately decide who at the inn broke the law, if indeed a law was broken. But, at the very least, the email quoted above certainly does make it seem like someone at the inn has a homophobia problem.

In the meantime, ABC News reports that Ming and Kate have found a different place to hold the festivities. I wish them all the best.

Today in Florida, Casey Anthony will be sentenced for the handful of misdemeanors for which the jury on Tuesday found her guilty, all related to giving false information to law enforcement. Since Anthony was acquitted of the more sensational charges against her, I am hoping that the whole media circus will now go away.

I am sick of it. And I am sick of the pundits and everyday citizens expressing their outrage over the jury’s decision on Tuesday that Anthony is not guilty of the murder of her 2-year-old daughter. (As if these armchair critics are privy to some secret evidence that would erase the reasonable doubt. But no, they just know it anyway.)

Just after the verdict broke, an acquaintance asked me what I thought of it. I answered honestly: I don’t care. I do not personally know Casey Anthony. She is not a member of my family or my professional or social circle, so it’s none of my immediate business, unless her human rights are at some point violated (which would have been the case had she been convicted with a death sentence).

The Casey Anthony story got so big, and so out of control, because the media saw some glamour (and therefore ratings) in it. A hot white middle-class mom may have killed her cute white daughter because the toddler was interfering with mom’s party-happy social life. Cha-ching! Not even Paris Hilton can compete with that.

But I hear stories every week here in Philly of missing children. In many of those cases, a parent is a suspect. But those other cases don’t become national news sensations. Maybe they’re just not glamorous enough. The parties involved might be minorities, or they just might not be interesting or edgy enough to capture the national spotlight.

This double standard is not solely the fault of the media that hype the select few cases. It’s also the fault of the sheep who turn them into a ratings success.

Get a life, people.

Sadly, though, I predict some major magazine exposure for Anthony after this, along with maybe a book and a made-for-TV movie.

Again: Get a life, people.