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.”
This is the problem. This line of reasoning is only a step or two removed from “therefore homosexuality must be stopped.” It is not a far leap from one to the next, and fundigelicals do it all the time.
But the main issue that Alito has a problem with is not that the religious will be mistreated because they’re Christians—he knows that’s a strawman; they’ve been harping on Christian Persecution™ for decades, yet they remain highly influential and prosperous. No, the problem is that society is fundamentally moving on from his religion, and his particular brand of religion has chosen to die on this hill, rather than adapt with the religious progressives.
He seems to be arguing, without rational warrant, that his religion is a precondition for society, not that religion can be a component of society, and that society will crumble without the superstition he prescribes. He wants us to just assume that his religion is axiomatically true without providing evidence for his presuppositions.
The age of Christians being the dominant force in the US is ending (if we can avoid theocracy/fascism), and people like Alito are doing everything they can to hold onto that position of power.
Oh, I absolutely agree and feel people are way too involved in other people’s lives. Like I said numerous times, I don’t think Alito does anything in good faith, but there’s still something to be learned from what comes out of his shit-filled mouth. Just like the mentally deficient people who say “Jeebus tells me you can’t be gay,” because they heard someone tell them it’s written in a book, there are mentally deficient people who will say, “you can’t serve on a court because you take advice from a book.”
So, really, the right phrasing of the ruling should say “bigots can’t serve on courts that will be swayed by their bigotry,” but then Alito would write himself out of a job, so he’s gotta frame the laws around his bigoted ass.