The Supreme Court justice is back to complaining about LGBTQ people in a recent opinion from the court.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is complaining that people who oppose homosexuality were being unfairly branded as bigots, despite that being a dictionary definition of bigotry.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a case about whether it is legal to exclude potential jurors based on their religion. The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Jean Finney, who is lesbian, against her longtime employer, the Missouri Department of Corrections, for workplace discrimination and retaliation due to her sexuality. During jury selection for the trial, which Finney won, her lawyer asked the judge to remove three jurors who had expressed beliefs that homosexuality is a sin. Finney’s lawyer argued their religious beliefs would bias them against LGBTQ people.
The state of Missouri appealed the decision, arguing that the jury selection process had been discriminatory on religious grounds. An appeals court sided with Finney, ruling the jurors had been eliminated due to their beliefs about homosexuality, not because they were Christians. Missouri appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, which declined Tuesday to hear the case.
In a statement, Alito said he agreed with the decision not to hear the lawsuit, but warned he felt the case was a harbinger of greater danger.
The appeals court ruling “exemplifies the danger that I anticipated in Obergefell v. Hodges,” Alitio wrote, referring to the landmark 2015 Supreme Court ruling that legalized marriage equality.
“Namely, that Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct will be ‘labeled as bigots and treated as such’ by the government,” he said. “The opinion of the Court in that case made it clear that the decision should not be used in that way, but I am afraid this admonition is not being heeded by our society.”
Not for nothing guy but you know good and well that argument is not being made in good faith, he never makes arguments in good faith, and frankly they’re not even being excluded from the jury because they’re Christian but because they’re exclusively anti-homosexual stance. So I feel like your entire comment was moot.
I feel that that comment adds some nuance to the discussion, so I wouldn’t call it ‘moot’ myself.
Yes, you’re right that I know good and well that he never makes arguments in good faith, that’s why I said it multiple times. I’m not sure that you read the whole comment, because it wasn’t about defending the indefensible. It was about ensuring that while we all deliver Alito a well-deserved “fuck you,” we have to also say, “except the part about not discriminating against religion. People can read whatever book they want.”
The problem is, as you already noted, the part about not discriminating against religion is specious to begin with. As we both pointed out that’s a bad faith argument. It it wasn’t occurring. We already have many laws protecting against that. The mere idea that we’re acknowledging he has any point when he clearly doesn’t legitimizes his bigoted stance.
I’m not sure that I see it that way, but I also can’t argue with your concern. Do you think if a more progressive or less lying-sack-of-shit person had said something similar that it would have more validity as a caution to not overcorrect into crossing boundaries? I’m not sure if “validity” is the right word since everything Alito says it’s invalidated by his malevolence.
Eta: perhaps I’m looking at this wrong and not giving people their proper benefit of the doubt. There might be more nuance than my “progressive person” question allows. Maybe a more progressive person wouldn’t be saying any of this in the first place?