The combination of a judge who is a peer, homosexuality, immigration and Kylie was always going to be a combustible media item.
But when Lord Rodger coupled his ruling against the forced extradition of gay asylum seekers with remarks about Kylie, cocktails and girlie chat, he presented the press with a stark choice - between a traditional 'out of touch old judge' story (for his stereotyping of gays) and a story which blasted the judiciary from the other end of the political spectrum for an apparent 'you can stay as long as you're gay' ruling.
So which high horse did the tabloids climb on?
Because you can't really ride both: if you find the judge's Kylie comments dated and stereotypical, you can't also be outraged by his rejection of the idea that having to 'keep a low profile' in their home countries is sufficient to send people home to oppressively anti-homosexual regimes.
On a day when the Sun and the Mirror gave over their news pages to the police hunt for Raoul Moat, the tabloids giving the story prominence were the Daily Express- its page-one splash under the headline "Now Asylum if You're Gay" - and the Daily Mail, where the story occupied page five.
Both make much of Lord Rodger's remarks about "going to Kylie concerts, drinking exotically coloured cocktails and talking about boys".
"What planet is he on?" shrieks the Mail, which informs us in its analysis column that there are 75 countries where homosexuality is illegal.
The paper quotes the gay rights charity Stonewall as saying the refusal rate for gay asylum claimants last year was 97% - compared to 77% for applications as a whole.
"What is certain," opines the Mail's James Slack, "is this 97% figure will now plummet."
Looking beyond the references to cocktails and Kylie, the underlying tone appears less homophobic than xenophobic. Or, to put it another way, both the Mail and the Express are more concerned with a potential increase in approved asylum applications than in the sexuality of the applicants.
Both papers raise the spectre of 'bogus' claimants, with the Express quoting Conservative MP Philip Davies as saying:
"It's a dangerous game to play to go down this line because it's quite feasible that this could offer an ideal line of defence for someone who wants to try to avoid being kicked out of the country, whether it is true or not they are gay."
I found myself drawn to the analysis of this issue by Richard Ford (no relation) in the Independent, which reports Lord Rodger's ruling as a "bold decision" that "shows [the Supreme] court will push boundaries".
Among other matters glossed over elsewhere: the fact that it was not Lord Rodger alone but five justices who unanimously ruled that asylum seekers could not be deported on the ground that they could conceal their sexual orientation in their home country.
In her column, the Independent's Antonia Senior sums up the situation following the Supreme Court's ruling when she says:
"Is Britain now a soft touch for gay asylum seekers? So be it. A civilised country can't let people drown in persecution."
Meanwhile, the Daily Express is busy canvassing its readers with the question: "Should you get asylum for being gay?"
Incidentally, calls and texts cost 25p a pop. Maybe the Express will consider donating the proceeds to Stonewall.
