Thomas & Alito criticize 2015 gay marriage ruling; call Kim Davis a "victim"

[BmorePat87]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/05/politics/clarence-thomas-samuel-alito/index.html?fbclid=IwAR25wicW3g4nZKdULQqdtareg4_c5U4kEFrp8_m9PTzBnLzCxHV9z8EDCLA

The Supreme Court decided to not hear Kim Davis' appeal of her jailing after she refused to follow a court order that told her to follow law and give a marriage license to two men in Kentucky. She claimed that her religion enabled her to ignore the law and her responsibility as an elected clerk.

Thomas and Alito took this as an oppurtunity to attack the 2015 decision that struck down gay marriage bans as unconstitutional, claiming that it enabled the courts to be cavalier about religion and treat those who opposed gay marriage as bigots. Thomas described Kim Davis as one of the "first victims" of the ruling and "not the last".

They went on to say the decision gave a "novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests protected by the First Amendment" and that "the court has created a problem that only it can fix."

[fredtoast]

(10-05-2020, 02:10 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/05/politics/clarence-thomas-samuel-alito/index.html?fbclid=IwAR25wicW3g4nZKdULQqdtareg4_c5U4kEFrp8_m9PTzBnLzCxHV9z8EDCLA

The Supreme Court decided to not hear Kim Davis' appeal of her jailing after she refused to follow a court order that told her to follow law and give a marriage license to two men in Kentucky. She claimed that her religion enabled her to ignore the law and her responsibility as an elected clerk.

Thomas and Alito took this as an oppurtunity to attack the 2015 decision that struck down gay marriage bans as unconstitutional, claiming that it enabled the courts to be cavalier about religion and treat those who opposed gay marriage as bigots. Thomas described Kim Davis as one of the "first victims" of the ruling and "not the last".

They went on to say the decision gave a "novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests protected by the First Amendment" and that "the court has created a problem that only it can fix."

**** those assholes.

Religious beliefs were the basis for discriminating against women.

Religious beliefs were the basis for the laws against interracial marriage. 

Religious beliefs were the basis for the laws making homosexuality a crime.

Religious beliefs have no place in determining who gets equal protection under the law, AND NOT ONE RELIGIOUS PERSON HAS BEEN HARMED OR HAD THEIR RIGHT TO WORSHIP ABRIDGED BY ALLOWING SAME SEX MARRIAGE.  Freedom to worship does not mean freedom to discriminate on the job when working for the State.

[Dill]

(10-05-2020, 02:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: **** those assholes.

Religious beliefs were the basis for discriminating against women.

Religious beliefs were the basis for the laws against interracial marriage. 

Religious beliefs were the basis for the laws making homosexuality a crime.

Religious beliefs have no place in determining who gets equal protection under the law, AND NOT ONE RELIGIOUS PERSON HAS BEEN HARMED OR HAD THEIR RIGHT TO WORSHIP ABRIDGED BY ALLOWING SAME SEX MARRIAGE.  Freedom to worship does not mean freedom to discriminate on the job when working for the State.

A lawyer should be able to see that the  2015 decision plainly interferes with a true believer's right to decide the limits of religious freedom for others.  

A new court appointment could fix the problem--first step in ending the war on religion.

[Belsnickel]

If you, as an individual, cannot hold to non-discriminatory practices, then don't become a public official or take on a job where you will have to be non-discriminatory.

Corporations are not people and do not hold religious beliefs.

Religious organizations that expand their services beyond worship (e.g. adoption services) should be beholden to regulations as any other organization as the expanded services are not the same as practicing their religion.

[*bfine32*]

Looks like Thomas and Alito still have issue with the constitutionality of the original decision to "legalize" SSM, and there's some merit to that, But as soon as someone disputes whether SCOTUS over-reached in this ruling they are considered a bigot, instead of someone questioning the merits of the ruling. So I can kinda see what they are saying.

As to this ruling: I'm glad it was unanimous. Even if you question SCOTUS' ruling on SSM, you still most uphold the law as written and they did. I also asserrted Davis was "wrong' in her actions once the court ruled.