513
submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

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.”

(page 2) 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] xc2215x@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Too bad for you Samuel.

[-] AceTKen@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

despite that being a dictionary definition of bigotry

Well, here is the dictionary definition of bigotry.

It fits both Alito and anyone who dislikes his views. I wasn't aware the definition was so broad but it basically applies to everyone who dislikes anyone else's view on anything.

[-] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

It's AGAINST the Constitution to be Gay!

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

Is that what he said? He said “I’m mad you can’t be bigoted at gay people anymore”?

[-] thefartographer@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago

I know that Alito doesn't ever do anything in good faith, but I can see how his argument has validity if made in good faith. I have plenty of Christian friends who absolutely support gay rights because, as a Christian, they feel that their job is to live through Christ and support their fellow Christians. They feel that homosexuality is a sin, but no more of a sin than original sin, so anyone who was ever birthed starts on a level playing field. Anything beyond that, to them, is for God to sort out.

These are the kind of people who believe that you save someone's soul by living as a good person and if someone else wants to emulate that, they can follow Christ in kind. If it takes an invisible sky-man to help these people make good choices, then sure, Christian it up, baby.

So, once again, if the argument were being made in good faith, I could see that Obergefell v Hodges, which boils down to "someone whose bigotry is based on religion is still a bigot," could be misconstrued into "religious people can be treated as bigots." It's a squares and rectangles sorta thing.

So, I think that maybe what Alito is saying is that he's afraid that labeling someone who says, "yeah, I'm a bigot cuz I'm a Christian," as a bigot could accidentally lead to "get that bigot out of here because they're Christian," and then that would lead to a new need for anti-discrimination laws. But, once again, that assumption would require giving Alito far more credit than he deserves.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2024
513 points (96.7% liked)

politics

19148 readers
3046 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS