Posted by:
elderolddog
(
)
Date: October 05, 2020 06:18PM
The Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses Gay couples suffered consequences. She wasn't happy with said consequences and may religious people were rooting for her to win her case for whatever it is that she wants as reparations.
But today, her case, which was refused a hearing by the SCOTUS, has come to an end.
BUT...!!
While agreeing that the refusal to hear the case was proper, two Justices, Thomas and Alito, took the opportunity to critique the MANNER in which the case giving all Americans the right to marry, regardless of their sex, was handled. (This was the case whose favorable decision created the problems for the County Clerk. The case said Gays could marry and she said her religion prohibited her from giving Gays the license they needed.)
From what I glean from the current analysis is that Alito & Thomas believe that Religion was smacked in the nose and that the resultant bloody nose, both hurtful and embarrassing, runs counter to the American Experience.
"Writing for himself and Alito, Thomas said that the court's decision 'enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss.'
and then later:
"By choosing to endorse 'a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the court has created a problem that only it can fix,' they said. 'Until then, Obergefell will continue to have ruinous consequences for religious liberty.'"
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/05/920416357/justices-thomas-alito-blast-supreme-court-decision-on-gay-marriage-rightsI find myself quibbling with their idea that 'Religion' has rights and/or privileges given to it by the Constitution, which Rights to be Bigots are then further protected by the First Amendment.
How does one protect one set of Rights from another Set of Rights? Isn't it obvious that both Believers and non-Believers need room to grow?
And isn't it almost a truism that non-Believers are pretty blase regarding what Believers want to do on Sundays? And isn't it also pretty much a truism that with regard to commerce, and the earning/getting of money, Anything Goes?
How many innocent Christian Fanatics were brutally married to a member of their same-sex without their consent? Is that the protection the two Justices think is missing?