LGBTQ+ Rights and America

They'll find one.

EDIT:

Edited by JamieBGood on Oct 5th 2020 at 3:28:22 PM

I’d be surprised if Roberts was willing to overturn precedent that quickly, plus Gorsuch just ruled against LGBT discrimination in the workplace, it’d be a weird swerve for him throw out gay marriage.

Supreme Court will not hear Kim Davis same-sex marriage case – Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk, had argued her religious convictions prevented her from recognizing such unions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-kim-davis-same-sex-marriage/2020/10/05/cd5a74d2-0710-11eb-9be6-cf25fb429f1a_story.html

I think every article I've seen about this points out Thomas's and Alito's dissent, complaining that this will hamper religious liberty.

No one seems to want to explain how "other people can do a thing I don't like" hampers religious freedom.

Because they know it makes no sense.

It also falls apart if you bother to point American marriage licenses have no spiritual significance to themselves.

They are legal documents.

Hell it also falls apart when you consider that gay-marriage bans restrict the rights of gay-friendly churches.

There is an argument for religious liberty to be made had she been forced to do it in some sort of religious capacity, like as a pastor or priest or something of a denomination that doesn't recognise same-sex marriage.

But she wasn't, she was an elected employee of the (secular) local county, and it was her job to be a cog in the broader inner workings of the US government, and to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Loads of people have to do things that they don't like doing as a part of their job, they still get it done. It might have been slightly more in the gray area if she had decided to recuse herself and delegate other people in the office to do what she didn't actually want to do, but she stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether (i.e. including to heterosexual couples) and then even went as far as stopping other staff from issuing marriage licenses in her stead. This is like a pro-life doctor not only refusing to perform an abortion themselves, but also stopping other non-abortion procedures in the surgery and then stopping other doctors from performing abortions on top of that.

I think you'll find it's exactly like that, because that's what Alito and Thomas want. "Religious freedom" in the States has almost never not meant "religious freedom to oppress others".

Oh, I mean, I know that what they think of religious liberty is effectively the liberty to discriminate against people for whatever reason they want. Hell, I know people still discriminate against black people in very Jim Crow ways citing religion as a defence.

As in "I think miscegenation is a sin, so no we will not let you book our venue for your marriage, black man with a white fiance".

Now, I don't know how/if that would stand up in court, because the couple didn't take it that far (just brush it off as crazy racist lady and move on to plan wedding), but y'know. The religious exemption in that case is such a paper-thin excuse for obvious racism.

They have this weird idea that "enabling sin" is somehow equally bad as the sin itself, so they have to do everything in their power to stop people, and saying they can't is thus an infringement on their freedom of religion.

While conveniently ignoring and steamrolling everyone whose religion does support gay marriage.

Monica Roberts, the creator of TransGriot, has passed at 58.

In reluctant fairness, "freedom of religion" arguments normally mean demanding the right for private sector individuals and businesses to not participate in activities that violate their beliefs, like that bakery that refused to bake a cake for an LGBT wedding. That argument makes perfect sense, it's just a bad idea to allow it in general.^note Just personally, I'd say if that bakery doesn't want customers, we should give them what they want. But that principle can go to very bad places.

Kim Davis' argument makes no sense, but that's because the American right abandoned "sense" a while back.

Well, when you look at Kim Davies's history, she belongs to a denomination of Christainity that takes things, well, further than most. She apparently had a conversion after her mother's deathbed wish was for her to go to church, after which she began dressing down, growing her hair out loud, and ceasing the application of makeup. This isn't exactly a mainstream thing.

Look, there are obviously limits to private sector freedom on both sides. A store is perfectly allowed to turn away customers whose behaviour it doesn't like (anti-maskers, people who aren't wearing shirts). On the other hand, a store clearly cannot turn people away because of who they are (refusing to serve black people is illegal). The question then is where LGBTQ customers fall on that spectrum. Obviously, I would personally characterize 'gay' and 'trans' as identities, but legal precedent matters more than my opinion. I would say that the recent case extending Title IX protections to gay and trans individuals could help that case.

Not all sides agree on the existence of limits. There remains within the US right-wing a belief that you should be able to refuse service to someone because they are black.

"Freedom of Religion" is also bracketed with the idea that if it was at all possible for you to have taken your business elsewhere, then the business exercising religious freedom has not discriminated against you in the process so you have no right to complain about it.

Businesses may set rules about whom they accept as customers as long as those rules are not discriminatory. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" is not targeting any particular demographic or protected group... although one might argue that it's designed to keep out the poor, but that's an entirely separate debate. "If you punch someone, you get thrown out" is not targeting any particular demographic or protected group either.

If we accept that LGBT+ status is a protected category, then a business may not refuse service to a person on the basis of being part of that category. This is a basic Constitutional issue that is not overridden by the First Amendment.

There is also nothing in the Bible about how you must refuse service to homosexuals, ergo it's not really a religious freedom issue.

I would argue what the Bible says doesn't matter, the right of religious people to act on their religion should not trump the rights of others. So even if the bible mandates discrimination the law should not accept it.

The Bible also doesn't matter because it's long established in the courts that a First Amendment argument does not require that the religious belief be explicitly codified in a text or doctrine, just that it be "sincerely held". The judicial system does not place itself in the position of deciding what is and is not a religious belief.

That said, there are tests for "genuine religions", so I can't claim to be a member of the Church of the Anchovy Pizza and demand that all pizzas I serve have anchovies on them or something.

Edited by Fighteer on Oct 9th 2020 at 4:08:20 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't "freedom of religon" mean you're not being discriminated against, not that you're allowed to discrimate against others?

The argument is that by being forced to treat LGBT people equally, you're being discriminated against yourself.

Edited by LeGarcon on Oct 9th 2020 at 4:26:43 AM