The conservative majority on the Supreme Court seems to have a new motto: “Halfway is no way.” From the start of Monday’s oral arguments, it seemed like the conservatives on the Supreme Court had already made up their minds. They ignored the fact that the facts of the case were not clear, brushed off the worst-case scenarios, and downplayed past decisions that seemed to go against a Colorado website designer who refused to work with same-s*x couples.
Justice Samuel Alito was even ready to use parts of the 2015 landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges, which gave same-s*x couples the right to get married, to argue that some business owners can turn away gay couples. He pointed out that the opinion’s author, now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, had said that “honorable” people might object to the same-s*x marriage, and he suggested that “religious objections to same-s*x marriage” could be treated differently from, say, racism.
Other right-wing justices focused on how expressive website designer Lorie Smith’s work was and downplayed the fact that she runs a business that has to follow the state’s public accommodation laws. Justice Amy Coney Barrett told Smith’s lawyer, Kristen Waggoner, “You’re on your strongest ground” when she said that Smith sat down and designed and came up with the graphics to make them unique for the couple.
Conservative justices don’t seem to be swayed by the fact that, if they rule in favor of Smith, “this would be the first time in the court’s history that it would say… a commercial business open to the public, serving the public, could refuse to serve a customer based on race, s*x, religion, or sexual orientation,” as liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out.
The right-wing majority that was formed as a result of former President Donald Trump’s three nominations has demonstrated a single-minded concentration on transforming specific areas of the law, most notably those that are associated with the freedom of religious expression.
Certain justices on the court have made it abundantly obvious that, in their opinion, religion is coming under attack and that Christian viewpoints are being stifled. They have made sweeping rulings, even when the circumstances of the case might imply that believers have not been the victims of any wrongdoing.
During the previous session, the court issued a ruling in favor of a football coach who had been banned by a public school system in Washington state for praying at midfield after games. The decision was 6-3, and the conservative majority prevailed over the liberal dissenters.
The behavior of coach Joseph Kennedy was depicted by the majority as unobtrusive and lonely in an opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch. This behavior was not in any way disruptive to players or bystanders near the field. Those who disagreed with the majority’s decision argued that it had erroneously interpreted the circumstances of the case and failed to take into account how Kennedy’s actions could have an impact on pupils and violate the constitutional principle of the separation of church and state. Those who disagreed with the decision took the unusual step of using images in their argument that showed John F. Kennedy surrounded by players praying while kneeling.
In the most consequential dispute of the previous session, which was over a Mississippi law that prohibited abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy and which had some religious overtones, conservative justices went beyond the legal question that was presented to them and unhesitatingly reversed a half-century of precedent by striking down the 1973 Roe v. Wade case, which was the case that first made abortion legal nationwide.
Four Years Ago, The Justices Gave Up
In a case from 2018 between a Colorado baker and the state civil rights commissioners, who were trying to enforce a law against discrimination based on sexual orientation, the justices ruled on narrow legal grounds. They sided with Christian baker Jack Phillips, who was punished for not making a custom cake for a gay couple. Phillips was a strong believer in his faith. But the decision was made based on facts that were linked to the anti-religious bias of some commissioners.
In the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the Supreme Court didn’t decide whether a business can discriminate against a same-s*x couple based on personal beliefs under the First Amendment’s free exercise of speech rights. On Monday, the justices talked about whether or not Smith, a website designer, has the right to free speech by making a wedding website for same-s*x couples. The facts of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case can’t be used in this case because Smith is arguing against the law before it has been used against her.
She wants a court order to stop the law from being enforced because she won’t make a website for any marriage that isn’t between a man and a woman. She said that doing something like that would go against her Christian beliefs. Waggoner said that even a simple message about gay marriage would put Smith in a tough spot when liberal justices asked him about it.
Waggoner said, “If you think the wedding is fake, the government would be forcing you to say something you wouldn’t say otherwise.” “In Obergefell, the court promised to protect people who believe marriage is between a man and a woman from having to say something that goes against their morals.” Still, Kennedy showed respect for people who didn’t agree with same-s*x marriages, but his full feelings showed that he was worried about the discrimination LGBTQ people faced.
“Many people who think same-s*x marriage is wrong to come to that conclusion based on good religious or philosophical ideas,” he wrote. “Neither they nor their ideas are put down here.” “But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes law and public policy, the only way to make it official is to give the State’s stamp of approval to an exclusion that soon degrades or stigmatizes the people whose freedom is then taken away.
Under the Constitution, same-s*x couples who get married want the same legal treatment as couples of the opposite sex. Denying them this right would be an insult to their choices and take away from who they are as people. Solicitor General Eric Olson of Colorado defended the state’s law against discrimination based on sexual orientation. He asked the justices not to “imprimatur” a web designer who would “say no to same-s*x people.”
“The Free Speech Clause exemption the company wants here is broad because it would apply not only to sincerely held religious beliefs, like those of the company and its owner, but also to all kinds of racist, sexist, and bigoted views,” he said.
Olson tried to say that the anti-bias law wasn’t meant to stop people from speaking their minds, but rather to make sure that businesses don’t treat their customers differently based on their status. Most conservative justices were still doubtful.
In this file photo from May 8, 2001, Chief Justice of the United States William Rehnquist speaks at a Federal Justices Association meeting in Arlington, Virginia. (AP Photo/Hillery Smith Garrison) Justice Neil Gorsuch insisted that Smith was willing to provide “all kinds of websites, but not one that requires her to write something, words on a page that can be changed, that celebrates something that goes against her religious beliefs.”
Olson kept saying that Smith wanted to keep same-s*x couples out of the club and that religious exemptions could be given in some cases. Gorsuch was still not sure, and he brought up Phillips and the case against the baker from the state. “As required by Colorado law, Mr. Phillips did go through a re-education training program, didn’t he, Mr. Olson?” Olson replied, “It was a process to make sure he knew Colorado law.” Gorsuch replied, “Someone could be forgiven for calling that a re-education program.”
If you liked this article, tell us what you think in the comments section. And don’t forget to visit our website Journalistpr.com. to find out what’s going on.
Leave a Reply