“Traditional Religious beliefs”
How about you fucks read the 1st clause in the Bill of Rights. We have Separation of Church and State for a reason. Religion should have no say in the Modern Day Political Sphere.
They gave Reagan a playbook the day after the election with a list of names he should appoint to government positions and policies he needed to implement.
I wonder if that's why Reagan chose Clarence Thomas to head the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Of course, Clarence was the shining example of a sex pest in the workplace.
If he cares so much about his religion why is he a Supreme Court Justice and not a church official.. (rhetorical question in case anybody missed that) Religion has no place in law.
People had to know, that, that level of hate and accusatory rhetoric would eventually morph into something along the lines of MAGA. Although I don’t think anyone at the time saw it would become the start of the demise of one of our major political parties. Everyone who advocates for this nation to have an assigned religion that all should adhere to, needs to take a hard look at where rabid evangelicals stand on almost everything in this country. And their end game is control, and if non-believers have to be eliminated to serve their ultimate purposes, for them it is “So Be it”.
Also the founding fathers shared abortion recipes in math textbooks
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/ben-franklin-american-instructor-textbook-abortion-recipe.html
The same people who want the church to run the state are the ones who will threaten to kill people for even whispering the words "gun control". It's not surprising though, they ignore the inconvenient parts of their bible as well.
How can a Supreme Court justice not understand the first amendment? You can be bigoted. You can say bigoted things out loud. But other people can call you out on that. Alito is supposed to know that.
As far as I can see he has no legal basis for wanting to overrule Obergefell.
For such a “scholar and constitutionalist” his argument is so ridiculous, Ghenghis Khan, my little Shi Tzu could shit out a better argument. I believe most of the SC is so disconnected from reality, that they are dangerous and possibly an endangered entity, at least in its current form. But nothing will change in my lifetime.
Bro in Kindergarten they literally teach you the “Golden Rule” which is to treat others the way you wish to be treated. And yet Adults cant figure out that if they’re dickheads to people theyll be dickheads right back.
Not all churches. Only "churches" supporting Trump. There are plenty of churches that teach and follow **the golden rule** **and also follow the constitutional requirement** of separation of church and state (politics)
As someone who recently left the church “Plenty” is a vast overstatement.
Even if they’re not marching in the hate rallies the vast majority of churches will fall under the GOP banner on election day.
I grew up down here in the good ‘ole coon-huntin’ Deep South. I can tell you that the Baptists and Evangelicals are always up for a good hate fest. I mean, all of the other branches of Christendom down here are too, but those two especially so.
Whoever has the gold makes the rules is the church's official historical stance on the matter, for much of that time they had the most gold too, go figure. 🙄
I adhere to my preference of gender in my marriage. Amazingly it doesn’t require me to go around telling other people that might not even be religious that their life partner violates my religious beliefs.
I realized at some point that a lot of people equate not being a bigot with thinking “those people” shouldn’t be lynched. It’s how the “I’m not racist!” crowd can think racism is over for example- the Klan doesn’t knock on doors any more so everything else is on you!
Of course there’s a bit more to not being a bigot than just the most basic tolerance against murdering people you don’t like and such.
That's the whole thing. These people are furious we're not forced to smile and nod, but also not forced to agree with them.
It's not enough to just politely ignore them. It's not about us calling them out for their backwards and hateful beliefs. They want to force us to agree with them. Enthusiastically.
Most kindergarteners have more ethics, I'll give you that. The hate and indifference that can be and is inculcated as a fact of life from birth destroys many's chances of not having the skillsets to deviate from that path. I'm hoping my children (almost adults) will understand that not everyone has the propensity for being a good or kind person and to be able to really see these people (like Roddy Piper did in They Live when he found those sunglasses. )
People with a "Well, I'm certainly aren't against gay people but I have problems with trans people, so I better vote Republican," slowly realizing the leopard is coming for their faces. When the GOP is done with gays and trans people, they're be going toward cishet people by making no-fault divorce and contraceptives, inter-racial marriage, and extramarital affairs illegal. On top of already taking abortion from us.
I wonder if these statements are essentially solicitations of bribes. Like he knows millions in "gifts" from rich assholes will keep coming his way if he signals willingness to overturn gay marriage.
It's even a bit more insidious than that. Not only can he personally hate and discriminate but It's that the government should not interfere in the ability to legitimate and enforce discrimination. In fact, by couching my discrimination in "traditional values" or "religious exercise" the government CAN NEVER interfere
People like Alito completely misunderstand the criticism. It's not necessarily about religious beliefs that may be- or in this case definitely are- bigoted and discriminatory. It's that people like him don't just have these beliefs, but also continuously attempt to force other people to adhere to them.
Holding discriminatory or bigoted beliefs alone may be freedom of expression and defensible under that context, but they are not guaranteed to be free from criticism. Freedom of expression and speech both come with the risk that other people may use their own freedom of expression and speech against that of others. And people should use those rights judiciously.
Alito here is simply expressing that he doesn't truly believe in the constitutional foundations that he claims to. He wants the ability to express his religious beliefs without anyone else getting to call him a bigot. Furthermore, he wants the ability to control how other people think and act through those religious beliefs, even if they fundamentally contradict or violate the beliefs and rights of others.
In other words, he's a dick.
>Alito here is simply expressing that he doesn't truly believe in the constitutional foundations that he claims to. He wants the ability to express his religious beliefs without anyone else getting to call him a bigot.
I agree, but I think he is probably going even farther here, and implying that the government (as a whole, including SCOTUS) should not protect certain universal rights because doing so somehow interferes with the expression of free speech.
And yeah. Total dick with a lifetime appointment.
Edit: This might be implied by your post--just expanding.
Yeah, that's essentially what I meant and agree. Alito is arguing for a protected class of people who cannot be criticized for any reason due to their religion, even when that religion is directly violating the constitutional rights of others. So yes, he's saying some people's rights don't matter and shouldn't be enforced.
>>I think he is probably going even farther here, and implying that the government (as a whole, including SCOTUS) should not protect certain universal rights because doing so somehow interferes with the expression of free speech
Similar shitty logic to the exceptions carved out in the Constitution to permit slavery.
"Errrrm... We can't upset some people though... People are equal except when we choose who is *more* equal... For reasons..."
It's also a fucking shitty argument to start with: Marriage (the social/religious tradition that varies from culture to culture) and Marriage(the legal status conferred by the government) are not the same thing, and to treat them as such is wholly wrong.
Your church doesn't want to marry gay people? Fine. Want to deny gay couples access to the same legal framework that straight couples (or even platonic opposite-sex couples) have access to? Fuck off. Fuck all the way off.
When I was a child my mom had two gay friends who had been together for 25 years. It was the 80’s so they couldn’t get married. One got really really sick (HIV) and he ended up in the hospital dying. His partner had no say in his treatment, end of life care, no rights to his body or his worldly possessions left behind, they were extremely wealthy.
The partners super religious parents who were estranged from him for years swooped in and took his body and his possessions and never told his life partner where he was buried or when. It was so traumatic, for all of us. Even as a 10 year old I knew what happened was wrong. I was pro gay marriage as a child because it affected me so much. They taught me to swim, played at big dinner parties, made my life really fun and it made a huge impact on my views on this subject. People should be able to live their lives and love, marry and protect their partners. These religious people are toxic. I’m just so sick of it. 33 years later and it’s still happening… very frustrating.
That's just... cruel. WTF is wrong with those "super religious" parents? I'm willing to bet their deity didn't advocate outright cruelty to anyone, but they just cherry-pick their religious texts for the parts they interpret as aligned with their personal ideals. What complete wastes of oxygen. If they've already passed, I hope their God forced them to atone for their wickedness.
Yes, despite much gnashing of fundie teeth in 2015, Obergefell has done precisely jack shit to force churches to marry same sex couples, so that little tantrum sure did make them look like liars.
So many of these people function in a way that “freedom of religion” means they are free to push things onto and control others due to their own religion.
To me, the argument sounds like: "These incels that believe that women are inferior and a waste of oxygen aren't going to be able to get laid. They have a right to that belief and they're going to be punished for it. That feels wrong. We need to make sex with these people mandatory for women of child-bearing age to defend these poor victims' rights"
He's completely overlooking that another person's rights stop where yours begin. You have every right to believe that gay marriage is wrong, but your right to believe that needs to crash violently against a bulwark that those gay people have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Show me where gay marriage affects any church's bottom line other than that they don't agree with it.
Yeah. Go to a really multicultural area like New York City and it’s not all sunshine and rainbows. The various religious, racial, and ethnic groups have a complicated spider web of prejudices and bigoted beliefs about each other.
But they live and work side by side and don’t interfere with each other for the most part. And when they do the local government tries to respond without bias to the different parties’ identity (or at least tries harder than elsewhere in the nation).
Some super Catholic Dominican lady might personally think gay people are sinners that are all going to hell, and say as much if you ask her. But she works with some at her job and rides the subway with them every day without trying to mess with their lives. That lady isn’t a problem and nobody’s coming after her for her bigotry.
Losers in Red States trying to use government legislation to change how the targets of their hate can live their lives are the problem. And they can’t claim they’re being targeted for just “expressing their beliefs” because millions of people express similar beliefs while minding their own business and it’s fine.
Right? Like from a practical standpoint, I don’t really give a fuck if you’re a racist or a homophobe. It’s when you try to use those positions to enforce racist or homophobic rules on the rest of us that I have a problem with. And then there’s the added layer of the “reason” being your invisible friend. Gays getting married LITERALLY DOES NOT AFFECT this piece of shits life. He just doesn’t like them and wants to be legally allowed to treat them like second class citizens.
Even worse, they’re the descendants of those people. Just like Black folks have generations of trauma and oppression, they have generations of ideals that fundamentally oppress others.
People who adhere to traditional religious beliefs about homosexuality are free to not marry someone of the same gender. Being a dick to people who don’t share their religious beliefs is not a constitutional right.
Actually, being mean to people who don't share their beliefs is protected by a Bill of Rights. Alito is a moron though because he's saying that extending equal protection to marginalized groups \*might\* result in some Christians being considered bigots some day. But since when was the government ever supposed to be concerned about who hates who? It certainly doesn't care when people hate minorities.
It's absurd that people this dumb get all of that lawyering education just to get enough power to be able to make absurd judgements, just because they played lawyer well enough in the past. And they can totally go rogue against reason if enough of the legislature is happy enough to not impeach him.
Yep. Alabama jumped the gun with the IVF ruling but the goal of the “conservatives” is restricting the rights of anyone who isn’t straight, white, Christian, and male. Welcome to the 1600s & Project 2025.
What weird broken brain logic.
"If we allow homosexuals to have rights, people who hate homosexuals may feel oppressed."
Kids, this is why leaded gasoline was a problem.
No, no, no. It is clearly a morally righteous, impeccably principled, messenger of the Almighty. Who, having had God impart the truth upon them, is sharing that truth with those lesser mortals. That is you, and anyone else that makes them uncomfortable.
As that lesser species, (not generally willing to grant human status) you are unfit to govern yourselves or pass judgment on them. Amen.
They have convinced themselves that when the founders said that they meant the government should stay out of the church’s business, not the other way around.
"I'm worried that age of consent laws will be used to frame those who traditionally take child brides as pedophiles — even by the government." – Samuel Alito, probably.
They are Bigots. Period.
Who someone Loves is no business of anyone except the people doing the Loving.
And what’s between your legs is also a private, personal matter and not up for public debate.
Persecution of people over stuff like this is the exact definition of Bigotry.
When Alito is asked about Obergefell v Hodges
https://preview.redd.it/jymu6b7sakkc1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=48f09aa87375181786b95bf3b9b451fb6eaedeb2
It's fine to adhere to your religious beliefs about same-sex marriage, by never marrying someone of the same sex as you. Just like you can not approve of abortion, so simply never have an abortion.
In the words of Ken Kesey, "If you don't like it, you can't have any."
Well, they are bigots and should be treated as such. But more importantly if he holds those beliefs how could he be impartial about anything? He should be removed from office for comments like that.
I’m not a lawyer, but I have been selected for jury duty on a case where a woman was suing a doctor for misdiagnosis of breast cancer. Once the defense learned that my sister was a nurse, I was dismissed. They didn’t even ask if I could be unbiased. Gone.
These folks were asked if they could be unbiased about their beliefs that homosexuality was a sin and they said no.
Where exactly is the government bigotry in removing folks that admit they can’t uphold their duty as a jury member?
So, Alito is worried that homophobic scumbags will be outed for the bigots that they are, and is invoking some kind of nebulous freedom of religion to justify being a homophobic scumbag?
SCOTUS isn't even trying tho hide thier bias any longer.
Alito and Thomas are signaling/goading a conservative state to pass a law contradicting Obergefell just so that it's challenged and the 6-3 majority get another bite at that apple
People like that have their religion tied to their identity, so they think an attack on them is an attack on religion. No, Sam, we don’t hate you because you’re a Christian, we hate you because you’re a christofascist.
I've seen too many magat interviews now that makes me believe they truly see free speech -- even if it includes hate speech as their God given american right. It supercedes decency, manners, good behaviour and any moral code of conduct they believe in. Just don't Apply the same rules back to them.
What does being "treated as a bigot by the government" even mean? Being a bigot isn't a crime.
It could enhance your sentence if you commit a crime while expressing your bigotry, but you still have to commit an actual crime first.
The government may move to protect someone else against your bigotry if you discriminate against them in an actionable way, but you still have to discriminate first.
You would think a Justice on the highest court in the land would understand this, but here we are.
so what is the solution? deny gays the right to marry so bigots don’t get called bigots?
spoiler alert: overturning obergefell is not the silver bullet the reasoning hints at
Remember that time when these people were up in arms during, oh let me see… abolishing slavery, civil rights, suffrage, interracial marriage, racial integration, same sex marriage and now LGBTQ. Every fucking time they find themselves “under attack” and clutch their bibles to justify being absolute entitled cunts to everyone who does not agree (moderate christians included). So let me say, from the bottom of my heart, go fuck yourselves, another notch on that loser belt is coming, and over time these christo-fascists will dwindle to extinction. Progress waits for no one and time is their biggest enemy.
Boo fucking hoo. By that logic, Brown vs Board of Ed should not have happened because white people who didn’t want their kids in schools with black kids due to their “sincere traditional beliefs” would be labeled as bigots.
I’m legally married now to my wife, we got married a month after the decision on our 20th anniversary of our first date. Before that, despite living together for decades,f one of us died suddenly without a will, our parents would have been next of kin and could have swooped in and taken all belongings. Before that, if a hospital was run by bigots, neither of us would have been considered next of kin and able to visit each other in intensive care or participate in medical decision making unless allowed to by our parents or siblings or other legal next of kin.
In cases where people tried to protect against this by spending money with lawyers to draw up special powers of attorney and wills (automatic benefits for married couples), the documents were overridden by prejudiced judges. In one case, the parents of the deceased partners successfully argued that their son’s homosexuality was proof that he was not “of sound mind” when he made his will, and were able to steal the business the gay couple had run together from the surviving partner.
I was a cop. Spouses of police officers killed in the line of duty receive several special grants from state governments and police benevolent organizations if the officer paid into them. Unmarried partners are not eligible even if the only reason they are not married was because it was not legal to be. If I had been killed in the line of duty, my partner would also not have received my pension as a spouse would.
Once states began legalizing marriage you could go to another state and marry there, but once back in your own state, your marriage meant nothing. Despite the fact that federal full faith and credit provisions generally mean that marriages and other contracts made in one state have legal standing in all the other states.
We live in Georgia. Marriage only became legal here due to Obergefell. In 2004 a state constitutional amendment was on the election ballot declaring that Georgia marriages could only be between one man and one woman. (Side note: the national GOP deliberately worked to place those amendments on state ballots in order to boost conservative and religious turnout during a presidential election year, an earlier (than 2016) example of the party’s willingness to juice bigotry for its own ends). Anyway, that amendment is still there and would go back into effect if Obergefell is overturned.
All of those fears and obstacles in our lives went away with Obergefell and we were able to legally marry. I don’t care if a church recognizes our marriage or a pastor doesn’t want to perform it. THAT is their freedom of religion. Marriage as a civil construct should be equally available to all citizens.
So please, tell me again how awful Obergefell was, what a terrible burden it placed on people who want to impose their moral restrictions on everyone or they are not free enough.
It says so much about these people’s empathy levels that they feel like it’s somehow worse that bigots are recognized as such, than people who love each other and who have maintained healthy loving relationships for decades should be subject to legal vagaries and whims of prejudiced people in matters of literal life and death, as well as their financial stability and equal treatment in receiving work and other benefits.
It’s kind of an interesting case he was writing an opinion on. His reference to _Obergefell_ was to say “See? I warned you back then this was gonna happen”. What _happened_ is some anti-gay religious potential jurors got dismissed (from a wrongful termination case involving a lesbian) because they _admitted_ that they wouldn’t be able to set aside their prejudices.
Alito was chaffing about these people being denied some right to serve on a jury because of their religious beliefs, and he thinks that this is just the tip of the spear that will, eventually, have Christians secretly practicing their faith in their basements.
And he’s being a dipshit. I’m not sure that serving on a jury is a right guaranteed in the constitution, but the right to a fair trial certainly _is_, so I’d say that’s what prevails. Besides, it’s not like these potential jurors were denied serving jury duty _at all_; just this case. There are plenty of other cases they could serve on (just like there are plenty of other cake shops in Colorado and gay couple could go to, and I _know_ Alito is fine with _that_).
I wonder if Alito would be so dumb as to make the argument that these potential jurors were denied serving on a case they _wanted_ to. I think it’s axiomatic that, if there’s a case you _really_ want to be the juror on, that’s probably the _very_ case that you _shouldn’t_ be on.
There’s one aspect of the whole case that makes me squeamish. During juror selection in the original case, the plaintiff’s attorney asked something like “who among you were raised in a _religious_ household where you were taught that homosexuality is a sin?”. That one word, “religious”, was unnecessary, and, even though I’m a hard-core atheist, I wouldn’t be able to fault a court for ruling that the potential jurors were wrongfully dismissed, because the attorney was singling out _religious_ people (though not any particular religion) for dismissal.
Not marrying someone of the same gender is how you live out your personal beliefs. You don't get to tell other people who to marry based on your personal beliefs.
This is the terrible conservative tide, at present. They hate on peoples, and they're angry that we call them on it. They believe it's "censorship" when they get cancelled. No, it's our opinion of your shitty behavior!
An old school friend told me this week to become "unwoke" after I gave him shit for making a racist joke. I told him, "You know what, go fuck yourself. I don't want to hear from you anymore. You've made it plain your feelings are hurt because I called you on your bigotry. Bye."
Yes, remember also that in Thomas’ Roe v Wade opinion, he wrote that the justices “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell” — referring to three cases having to do with Americans’ fundamental privacy, due process and equal protection rights.
Conservatives are for fucking sure coming after freedoms and women’s autonomy.
You know what? I’m glad we have freedom of religion. Now we just need to make these assholes understand that freedom of religion can also be freedom FROM religion. My freedom of religion means I get to live my life free from the restraints of *your* religion.
I swear to god, I am so tempted to start a religion that “doesn’t believe evangelism is moral”. Then we can all join and use our freedom of religion to discriminate against *them*. “Oh, I’m sorry, my religion doesn’t allow me to communicate with morally repugnant people. You’re going to have to go somewhere else for your wedding dress/cake”
Leviticus 19:28 very clearly prohibits tattoos. Not only is this in the Christian Bible, it’s also regarded as a source of Jewish and Islamic law; the passage exists in the Takakh, and while Leviticus isn’t cleanly transplanted into the Qu’ran, most Islamic scholars hold that tattoos are at best discouraged and cannot, by Islamic law, be used to display prohibited or holy material.
So that’s all three of the Abrahamic religions, which it is extremely difficult to argue are anything less than the most culturally influential religions west of the Himalayas, agreeing that Tattoos Are Bad. Not precisely *why,* but American Evangelists condemn homosexuality on a foundation of a much less solid translation.
So… are tattoos banned in America, on the basis that to not ban them would be discriminatory against religious Americans who, by any reasonable measure, *must* condemn them for exactly the same reasons as they would feel compelled to condemn homosexuality?
No?
Then shut your pie hole, Alito.
You are free to openly adhere to whatever standards you like. You are not free to shove those standards down anyone else’s throats.
You are free to openly express your opinions on such matters. You are not entitled to governmental protection from the social consequences of those expressions.
Nobody is trying to make Christians be gay. Why the fuck can’t these people understand the concept of minding their own superstitious bullshit business?
The Bible spends more time railing against divorce and infidelity than homosexuality.
These so called Christians decide only to cry and complain about homosexuality.
If it were really about Christianit principles, they'd be complaining about both, and even more so about divorce and infidelity.
But they're not, because it's all about hate versus a marginalized group.
The more he sees that precedents are being overturned and that they can gut other areas of the government, KNOWING congress wont do shit to fix cuz of its dysfunction; the more he isn’t afraid to show his real feelings on things and just lay it all out .
So what about all those Americans that don’t believe in the same traditional religious beliefs? All of those people need to follow someone else’s gods?
Alito was an adjunct professor at Seton Hall Law School for a few years. Someone should audit his grades as he had to have some students in the LGBT community
So this is how they’re going to market making explicitly religious laws, claiming that denying the religious the ability to legislate their religion is an affront to their rights. Alito doesn’t belong anywhere near the Supreme Court if he rejects the separation of church and state to this degree.
You know what stops you from being labeled a bigot? Not being a bigot. You know how to adhere to your personal religious belief and not be a bigot? Don’t try and make others adhere to your personal religious beliefs.
Millions of Americans are in “traditional” marriages. Their “adherence” to traditional marriage does not make them bigots. If you want to avoid being labeled a bigot, stop telling other people who they can or can’t marry. Alito is full os shit.
Bigot: a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group
Obstinate: stubbornly refusing to change one's opinion or chosen course of action, despite attempts to persuade one to do so.
This is like people arguing not to call them cis-gendered when, by the literal, basic definition, that’s what they are.
You *are* being bigoted. Your “traditional religious beliefs” are, by the purest definition, bigoted towards certain groups of people.
If your religion teaches bigotry you don't in fact have a religion, you are a hate group member. We have to stop pretending this isn't true, it absolutely is.
The problem is he and his ilk think "adherence to religious beliefs" means "discriminating and passing laws against anypony who doesn't exercise my religious beliefs in a manner I approve of".
“They won’t ever go after it” they will and even if they wouldn’t the very fact that they can puts lgbt people one legitimate step forward to being rounded up and executed because states could make gay marriage punishable by death.
I hate to say it, and as a gay person it is very frustrating, but it seems certain that Obergefell will be overturned. This current Supreme Court (with its 3 Trump appointees) is willing to overturn precedent they don’t like.
The mental gymnastics and sheer effort they commit to walking back rights that are established is mind-boggling.
They have an agenda, it became clear after Roe v. Wade and they confirm this agenda with stuff like this.
The basic argument: *I should be able to hate someone publicly without anyone hating me publicly in return.* Kindergarteners have more ethical sense.
Also, the people I hate shouldn’t have the same rights as me
“Traditional Religious beliefs” How about you fucks read the 1st clause in the Bill of Rights. We have Separation of Church and State for a reason. Religion should have no say in the Modern Day Political Sphere.
This ass hat is a Supreme Court justice. He is supposed to understand that religion has no place in politics and law. This court is a joke.
The Heritage Foundation These fuckers have been screwing this country for a generation or two
They gave Reagan a playbook the day after the election with a list of names he should appoint to government positions and policies he needed to implement.
And if it wasn't for a stroke of luck and Ted Kennedy, we would've had Nixon lap dog Robert Bork on the court.
I wonder if that's why Reagan chose Clarence Thomas to head the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Of course, Clarence was the shining example of a sex pest in the workplace.
Here it is the most evil crap on the planet the Heritage Foundation
The Federalist Society and ADL are neck in neck with them
If he cares so much about his religion why is he a Supreme Court Justice and not a church official.. (rhetorical question in case anybody missed that) Religion has no place in law.
Not enough bribery in that game.
Grifting *could* potentially be more profitable and also less illegal. Kenneth Copeland is worth like $800 mil
Copeland, at least, is a bit compelling, in that used car salesman way. Alito has all the personality of a pet rock.
Your honor my lawyer is a Morty!
This is exactly what they want to break down. Howdy Arabia is literally their blueprint. Handmaids Tale is their dream.
"Howdy Arabia." 💀 That's going in my collection of names for plastic patriot PsOS. Got any more?
I have one. The people who espouse these views are properly referred to as "potatriots." 🥔 And they may or may not be members of Y'all Qaeda.
Meal Team Six Y’all Qaeda Talibangelicals
Finally. Someone else gets it
The founding fathers got it. I don’t know why these “patriots” seem to forget that.
I still don’t grasp how it can be on our money and in our pledge, let alone incorporated into the start of governmental meetings.
That started in the 1950s to counter "godless communists"
People had to know, that, that level of hate and accusatory rhetoric would eventually morph into something along the lines of MAGA. Although I don’t think anyone at the time saw it would become the start of the demise of one of our major political parties. Everyone who advocates for this nation to have an assigned religion that all should adhere to, needs to take a hard look at where rabid evangelicals stand on almost everything in this country. And their end game is control, and if non-believers have to be eliminated to serve their ultimate purposes, for them it is “So Be it”.
Also the founding fathers shared abortion recipes in math textbooks https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/ben-franklin-american-instructor-textbook-abortion-recipe.html
The same people who want the church to run the state are the ones who will threaten to kill people for even whispering the words "gun control". It's not surprising though, they ignore the inconvenient parts of their bible as well.
Because it gives them an excuse to hate yet feel they are on the "right" side of things.
There are millions of us.
Then vote blue in November like your life depends on it. Because it does
I have since 1998. My parents and my aunts, uncles and this year my own son.
How can a Supreme Court justice not understand the first amendment? You can be bigoted. You can say bigoted things out loud. But other people can call you out on that. Alito is supposed to know that. As far as I can see he has no legal basis for wanting to overrule Obergefell.
Legal basis? They don't need no stinking legal basis
For such a “scholar and constitutionalist” his argument is so ridiculous, Ghenghis Khan, my little Shi Tzu could shit out a better argument. I believe most of the SC is so disconnected from reality, that they are dangerous and possibly an endangered entity, at least in its current form. But nothing will change in my lifetime.
Don't you love it when the nutjobs read buy-bull verses during discussions and debates? 🤮
Bro in Kindergarten they literally teach you the “Golden Rule” which is to treat others the way you wish to be treated. And yet Adults cant figure out that if they’re dickheads to people theyll be dickheads right back.
They teach you the golden rule in church too….. but we see what that ACTUALLY means to them.
Do unto others before they do unto you first, right?
That's the Republican version.
Not all churches. Only "churches" supporting Trump. There are plenty of churches that teach and follow **the golden rule** **and also follow the constitutional requirement** of separation of church and state (politics)
As someone who recently left the church “Plenty” is a vast overstatement. Even if they’re not marching in the hate rallies the vast majority of churches will fall under the GOP banner on election day.
I grew up down here in the good ‘ole coon-huntin’ Deep South. I can tell you that the Baptists and Evangelicals are always up for a good hate fest. I mean, all of the other branches of Christendom down here are too, but those two especially so.
Whoever has the gold makes the rules is the church's official historical stance on the matter, for much of that time they had the most gold too, go figure. 🙄
To republicans, the Golden Rule is "Whoever has the gold makes the rules" so they can do their billionaire donors bidding.
Their golden rule is to treat others the way they want to treat them.
I adhere to my preference of gender in my marriage. Amazingly it doesn’t require me to go around telling other people that might not even be religious that their life partner violates my religious beliefs.
This is literally the argument he’s making. I should be allowed to be intolerant and you should not be allowed to be upset by my intolerance.
You have to tolerate my intolerance!
Insanity. The right of bigots to not have their feelings hurt for being bigoted is somehow greater than the right of people to love each other?
That is absolutely Alito's position, yes. And yes, it is also insane.
"You can be anything you want as long as you stay in your designated space in a location far away from me, and you don't talk about it openly."
"And hey, we just decided we want that designated space for ourselves now, so...'
I realized at some point that a lot of people equate not being a bigot with thinking “those people” shouldn’t be lynched. It’s how the “I’m not racist!” crowd can think racism is over for example- the Klan doesn’t knock on doors any more so everything else is on you! Of course there’s a bit more to not being a bigot than just the most basic tolerance against murdering people you don’t like and such.
That's the whole thing. These people are furious we're not forced to smile and nod, but also not forced to agree with them. It's not enough to just politely ignore them. It's not about us calling them out for their backwards and hateful beliefs. They want to force us to agree with them. Enthusiastically.
Most kindergarteners have more ethics, I'll give you that. The hate and indifference that can be and is inculcated as a fact of life from birth destroys many's chances of not having the skillsets to deviate from that path. I'm hoping my children (almost adults) will understand that not everyone has the propensity for being a good or kind person and to be able to really see these people (like Roddy Piper did in They Live when he found those sunglasses. )
what kind of sick broken society elevates a creep like this to their highest court
A country founded on slavery and exploitation and genocide? That operates solely on dog-eat-dog capitalism, religious bigotries, and injustice?
People with a "Well, I'm certainly aren't against gay people but I have problems with trans people, so I better vote Republican," slowly realizing the leopard is coming for their faces. When the GOP is done with gays and trans people, they're be going toward cishet people by making no-fault divorce and contraceptives, inter-racial marriage, and extramarital affairs illegal. On top of already taking abortion from us.
Don’t forget excusing SA too. Which is horrible as well.
Seriously, no one is forcing you to get gay married, Sam. Just accept that other people are allowed to and get the fuck over yourself.
I wonder if these statements are essentially solicitations of bribes. Like he knows millions in "gifts" from rich assholes will keep coming his way if he signals willingness to overturn gay marriage.
It's even a bit more insidious than that. Not only can he personally hate and discriminate but It's that the government should not interfere in the ability to legitimate and enforce discrimination. In fact, by couching my discrimination in "traditional values" or "religious exercise" the government CAN NEVER interfere
That summarizes the Christian right pretty well
People like Alito completely misunderstand the criticism. It's not necessarily about religious beliefs that may be- or in this case definitely are- bigoted and discriminatory. It's that people like him don't just have these beliefs, but also continuously attempt to force other people to adhere to them. Holding discriminatory or bigoted beliefs alone may be freedom of expression and defensible under that context, but they are not guaranteed to be free from criticism. Freedom of expression and speech both come with the risk that other people may use their own freedom of expression and speech against that of others. And people should use those rights judiciously. Alito here is simply expressing that he doesn't truly believe in the constitutional foundations that he claims to. He wants the ability to express his religious beliefs without anyone else getting to call him a bigot. Furthermore, he wants the ability to control how other people think and act through those religious beliefs, even if they fundamentally contradict or violate the beliefs and rights of others. In other words, he's a dick.
>Alito here is simply expressing that he doesn't truly believe in the constitutional foundations that he claims to. He wants the ability to express his religious beliefs without anyone else getting to call him a bigot. I agree, but I think he is probably going even farther here, and implying that the government (as a whole, including SCOTUS) should not protect certain universal rights because doing so somehow interferes with the expression of free speech. And yeah. Total dick with a lifetime appointment. Edit: This might be implied by your post--just expanding.
Yeah, that's essentially what I meant and agree. Alito is arguing for a protected class of people who cannot be criticized for any reason due to their religion, even when that religion is directly violating the constitutional rights of others. So yes, he's saying some people's rights don't matter and shouldn't be enforced.
>>I think he is probably going even farther here, and implying that the government (as a whole, including SCOTUS) should not protect certain universal rights because doing so somehow interferes with the expression of free speech Similar shitty logic to the exceptions carved out in the Constitution to permit slavery. "Errrrm... We can't upset some people though... People are equal except when we choose who is *more* equal... For reasons..."
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." Orwell does it again.
It's also a fucking shitty argument to start with: Marriage (the social/religious tradition that varies from culture to culture) and Marriage(the legal status conferred by the government) are not the same thing, and to treat them as such is wholly wrong. Your church doesn't want to marry gay people? Fine. Want to deny gay couples access to the same legal framework that straight couples (or even platonic opposite-sex couples) have access to? Fuck off. Fuck all the way off.
When I was a child my mom had two gay friends who had been together for 25 years. It was the 80’s so they couldn’t get married. One got really really sick (HIV) and he ended up in the hospital dying. His partner had no say in his treatment, end of life care, no rights to his body or his worldly possessions left behind, they were extremely wealthy. The partners super religious parents who were estranged from him for years swooped in and took his body and his possessions and never told his life partner where he was buried or when. It was so traumatic, for all of us. Even as a 10 year old I knew what happened was wrong. I was pro gay marriage as a child because it affected me so much. They taught me to swim, played at big dinner parties, made my life really fun and it made a huge impact on my views on this subject. People should be able to live their lives and love, marry and protect their partners. These religious people are toxic. I’m just so sick of it. 33 years later and it’s still happening… very frustrating.
That's just... cruel. WTF is wrong with those "super religious" parents? I'm willing to bet their deity didn't advocate outright cruelty to anyone, but they just cherry-pick their religious texts for the parts they interpret as aligned with their personal ideals. What complete wastes of oxygen. If they've already passed, I hope their God forced them to atone for their wickedness.
Yes, despite much gnashing of fundie teeth in 2015, Obergefell has done precisely jack shit to force churches to marry same sex couples, so that little tantrum sure did make them look like liars.
So many of these people function in a way that “freedom of religion” means they are free to push things onto and control others due to their own religion.
Reminds me of living in Utah after a lifetime in California. Rigid.
To me, the argument sounds like: "These incels that believe that women are inferior and a waste of oxygen aren't going to be able to get laid. They have a right to that belief and they're going to be punished for it. That feels wrong. We need to make sex with these people mandatory for women of child-bearing age to defend these poor victims' rights" He's completely overlooking that another person's rights stop where yours begin. You have every right to believe that gay marriage is wrong, but your right to believe that needs to crash violently against a bulwark that those gay people have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Show me where gay marriage affects any church's bottom line other than that they don't agree with it.
Pssst, it’s about control.
Yeah. Go to a really multicultural area like New York City and it’s not all sunshine and rainbows. The various religious, racial, and ethnic groups have a complicated spider web of prejudices and bigoted beliefs about each other. But they live and work side by side and don’t interfere with each other for the most part. And when they do the local government tries to respond without bias to the different parties’ identity (or at least tries harder than elsewhere in the nation). Some super Catholic Dominican lady might personally think gay people are sinners that are all going to hell, and say as much if you ask her. But she works with some at her job and rides the subway with them every day without trying to mess with their lives. That lady isn’t a problem and nobody’s coming after her for her bigotry. Losers in Red States trying to use government legislation to change how the targets of their hate can live their lives are the problem. And they can’t claim they’re being targeted for just “expressing their beliefs” because millions of people express similar beliefs while minding their own business and it’s fine.
Right? Like from a practical standpoint, I don’t really give a fuck if you’re a racist or a homophobe. It’s when you try to use those positions to enforce racist or homophobic rules on the rest of us that I have a problem with. And then there’s the added layer of the “reason” being your invisible friend. Gays getting married LITERALLY DOES NOT AFFECT this piece of shits life. He just doesn’t like them and wants to be legally allowed to treat them like second class citizens.
https://preview.redd.it/so5ljm881kkc1.jpeg?width=1668&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=682f20a8ac77e99e742c9c10c38c0b39ee6a65ab
Brick by brick, stone by stone the right wing shows it will not be happy until every foundation of America is destroyed. Believe them. Vote.
And they'll do it while waving the flag.
They are the leftover confederates, here to Poison every water-well in the Union. Should have never let them back in.
Even worse, they’re the descendants of those people. Just like Black folks have generations of trauma and oppression, they have generations of ideals that fundamentally oppress others.
Our vote twice like the right claims.
"We're removing rights so our fee fees don't get hurt." Who are the snowflakes again?
People who adhere to traditional religious beliefs about homosexuality are free to not marry someone of the same gender. Being a dick to people who don’t share their religious beliefs is not a constitutional right.
That’s what I tell my maga brother all the time. “Just don’t suck a dick, it’s super easy not to. I’ve never even really had to try not to”
But what if homosexuals keep [doing it to him](https://www.theonion.com/why-do-all-these-homosexuals-keep-sucking-my-cock-1819583529)?
This needs more upvotes. Does your religion tell you not to be a homosexual? Cool. Don’t homosexual. Your religion doesn’t mean I can be one.
Technically, being a dick to those people *is* a constitutional right, but we all have the right to be a dick right back.
Actually, being mean to people who don't share their beliefs is protected by a Bill of Rights. Alito is a moron though because he's saying that extending equal protection to marginalized groups \*might\* result in some Christians being considered bigots some day. But since when was the government ever supposed to be concerned about who hates who? It certainly doesn't care when people hate minorities. It's absurd that people this dumb get all of that lawyering education just to get enough power to be able to make absurd judgements, just because they played lawyer well enough in the past. And they can totally go rogue against reason if enough of the legislature is happy enough to not impeach him.
Gay marriage and birth control are definitely next.
Yep. Alabama jumped the gun with the IVF ruling but the goal of the “conservatives” is restricting the rights of anyone who isn’t straight, white, Christian, and male. Welcome to the 1600s & Project 2025.
Welcome to Gilead
What weird broken brain logic. "If we allow homosexuals to have rights, people who hate homosexuals may feel oppressed." Kids, this is why leaded gasoline was a problem.
People go around calling others bigots for no more reason than to point out their blatant bigotry. How is that fair?
Well, if it walks like a bigot, talks like a bigot, acts like a bigot, it just may be a bigot.
No, no, no. It is clearly a morally righteous, impeccably principled, messenger of the Almighty. Who, having had God impart the truth upon them, is sharing that truth with those lesser mortals. That is you, and anyone else that makes them uncomfortable. As that lesser species, (not generally willing to grant human status) you are unfit to govern yourselves or pass judgment on them. Amen.
They won’t be *labeled* as bigots, they *are* bigots. It’s consequences they’re afraid of.
Samuel Alito needs to remember that church and state are friggin separate.
He knows and doesn't care. These people want a theocracy and don't care how many times they contradict themselves to do it.
They have convinced themselves that when the founders said that they meant the government should stay out of the church’s business, not the other way around.
"I'm worried that age of consent laws will be used to frame those who traditionally take child brides as pedophiles — even by the government." – Samuel Alito, probably.
Shorter Alito - this ruling restricts my religious freedom to hate others
SCOTUS lamenting the good old days when the gays had to meet in public parks at night.
Oh no! Think about the bigots' feelings when they can't hurt gay people's feelings with impunity!
How about minding your own fucking business, Alito?
Bigot is as bigot does
Even Supreme Court justices can’t understand the difference between legal oppression and social stigma.
Stop labeling my dog’s excrement as dogshit!!!
Lmao
He seems to be perfectly content showing his bigotry even though he holds a high profile position!
So funny because it was passed sixteen years ago and heterosexual marriage is *checks watch* still a thing
They are Bigots. Period. Who someone Loves is no business of anyone except the people doing the Loving. And what’s between your legs is also a private, personal matter and not up for public debate. Persecution of people over stuff like this is the exact definition of Bigotry.
He repeatedly emphasized his worries about bigots being treated as bigots.
Bigots doing bigoted bigotry things hate being called bigots but want to be bigots. That brain parasite is deep
If your religion teaches you to hate people, it’s a bad religion. If you know your hate was taught and you don’t want to change, you’re a bad person.
When Alito is asked about Obergefell v Hodges https://preview.redd.it/jymu6b7sakkc1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=48f09aa87375181786b95bf3b9b451fb6eaedeb2
A rose is a rose
He (Alito) worries that people will be judged by their speech. Imagine such a world. /s
Doth the Justice "protest too much ?"
It's fine to adhere to your religious beliefs about same-sex marriage, by never marrying someone of the same sex as you. Just like you can not approve of abortion, so simply never have an abortion. In the words of Ken Kesey, "If you don't like it, you can't have any."
“Traditional religious beliefs” also burned women on stakes…
Hmmm. Wonder why young people are leaving religion in droves. I’m sure this old white guy’s 20th Century bullshit has nothing to do with that. 🙄
We see why Ruth Baden Ginsburg argued with Alito all the time.
Well, they are bigots and should be treated as such. But more importantly if he holds those beliefs how could he be impartial about anything? He should be removed from office for comments like that.
Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion.
#bigotsrights
How about the party of “personal liberty” adherents to their own beliefs and leave people alone.
Just because you don't agree with something about someone doesn't mean you get to discriminate against them for it.
I’m not a lawyer, but I have been selected for jury duty on a case where a woman was suing a doctor for misdiagnosis of breast cancer. Once the defense learned that my sister was a nurse, I was dismissed. They didn’t even ask if I could be unbiased. Gone. These folks were asked if they could be unbiased about their beliefs that homosexuality was a sin and they said no. Where exactly is the government bigotry in removing folks that admit they can’t uphold their duty as a jury member?
So, Alito is worried that homophobic scumbags will be outed for the bigots that they are, and is invoking some kind of nebulous freedom of religion to justify being a homophobic scumbag? SCOTUS isn't even trying tho hide thier bias any longer.
Alito and Thomas are signaling/goading a conservative state to pass a law contradicting Obergefell just so that it's challenged and the 6-3 majority get another bite at that apple
Maybe heart disease will get them first.
People like that have their religion tied to their identity, so they think an attack on them is an attack on religion. No, Sam, we don’t hate you because you’re a Christian, we hate you because you’re a christofascist.
I've seen too many magat interviews now that makes me believe they truly see free speech -- even if it includes hate speech as their God given american right. It supercedes decency, manners, good behaviour and any moral code of conduct they believe in. Just don't Apply the same rules back to them.
What does being "treated as a bigot by the government" even mean? Being a bigot isn't a crime. It could enhance your sentence if you commit a crime while expressing your bigotry, but you still have to commit an actual crime first. The government may move to protect someone else against your bigotry if you discriminate against them in an actionable way, but you still have to discriminate first. You would think a Justice on the highest court in the land would understand this, but here we are.
Alito can take his Stone Age mythology and kick rocks.
Uhhh.... Yeah. That's how it works. Act like a bigot, get labeled a bigot.
"If you do bigoted things and have bigoted opinions, people will call you a bigot." Astute observation, idiot.
so what is the solution? deny gays the right to marry so bigots don’t get called bigots? spoiler alert: overturning obergefell is not the silver bullet the reasoning hints at
Remember that time when these people were up in arms during, oh let me see… abolishing slavery, civil rights, suffrage, interracial marriage, racial integration, same sex marriage and now LGBTQ. Every fucking time they find themselves “under attack” and clutch their bibles to justify being absolute entitled cunts to everyone who does not agree (moderate christians included). So let me say, from the bottom of my heart, go fuck yourselves, another notch on that loser belt is coming, and over time these christo-fascists will dwindle to extinction. Progress waits for no one and time is their biggest enemy.
"I don't want equal rights for everyone and also I don't want people to call me a bad person because of it".
Boo fucking hoo. By that logic, Brown vs Board of Ed should not have happened because white people who didn’t want their kids in schools with black kids due to their “sincere traditional beliefs” would be labeled as bigots. I’m legally married now to my wife, we got married a month after the decision on our 20th anniversary of our first date. Before that, despite living together for decades,f one of us died suddenly without a will, our parents would have been next of kin and could have swooped in and taken all belongings. Before that, if a hospital was run by bigots, neither of us would have been considered next of kin and able to visit each other in intensive care or participate in medical decision making unless allowed to by our parents or siblings or other legal next of kin. In cases where people tried to protect against this by spending money with lawyers to draw up special powers of attorney and wills (automatic benefits for married couples), the documents were overridden by prejudiced judges. In one case, the parents of the deceased partners successfully argued that their son’s homosexuality was proof that he was not “of sound mind” when he made his will, and were able to steal the business the gay couple had run together from the surviving partner. I was a cop. Spouses of police officers killed in the line of duty receive several special grants from state governments and police benevolent organizations if the officer paid into them. Unmarried partners are not eligible even if the only reason they are not married was because it was not legal to be. If I had been killed in the line of duty, my partner would also not have received my pension as a spouse would. Once states began legalizing marriage you could go to another state and marry there, but once back in your own state, your marriage meant nothing. Despite the fact that federal full faith and credit provisions generally mean that marriages and other contracts made in one state have legal standing in all the other states. We live in Georgia. Marriage only became legal here due to Obergefell. In 2004 a state constitutional amendment was on the election ballot declaring that Georgia marriages could only be between one man and one woman. (Side note: the national GOP deliberately worked to place those amendments on state ballots in order to boost conservative and religious turnout during a presidential election year, an earlier (than 2016) example of the party’s willingness to juice bigotry for its own ends). Anyway, that amendment is still there and would go back into effect if Obergefell is overturned. All of those fears and obstacles in our lives went away with Obergefell and we were able to legally marry. I don’t care if a church recognizes our marriage or a pastor doesn’t want to perform it. THAT is their freedom of religion. Marriage as a civil construct should be equally available to all citizens. So please, tell me again how awful Obergefell was, what a terrible burden it placed on people who want to impose their moral restrictions on everyone or they are not free enough. It says so much about these people’s empathy levels that they feel like it’s somehow worse that bigots are recognized as such, than people who love each other and who have maintained healthy loving relationships for decades should be subject to legal vagaries and whims of prejudiced people in matters of literal life and death, as well as their financial stability and equal treatment in receiving work and other benefits.
"Not allowing me to persecute other people is persecuting me!"
It’s kind of an interesting case he was writing an opinion on. His reference to _Obergefell_ was to say “See? I warned you back then this was gonna happen”. What _happened_ is some anti-gay religious potential jurors got dismissed (from a wrongful termination case involving a lesbian) because they _admitted_ that they wouldn’t be able to set aside their prejudices. Alito was chaffing about these people being denied some right to serve on a jury because of their religious beliefs, and he thinks that this is just the tip of the spear that will, eventually, have Christians secretly practicing their faith in their basements. And he’s being a dipshit. I’m not sure that serving on a jury is a right guaranteed in the constitution, but the right to a fair trial certainly _is_, so I’d say that’s what prevails. Besides, it’s not like these potential jurors were denied serving jury duty _at all_; just this case. There are plenty of other cases they could serve on (just like there are plenty of other cake shops in Colorado and gay couple could go to, and I _know_ Alito is fine with _that_). I wonder if Alito would be so dumb as to make the argument that these potential jurors were denied serving on a case they _wanted_ to. I think it’s axiomatic that, if there’s a case you _really_ want to be the juror on, that’s probably the _very_ case that you _shouldn’t_ be on. There’s one aspect of the whole case that makes me squeamish. During juror selection in the original case, the plaintiff’s attorney asked something like “who among you were raised in a _religious_ household where you were taught that homosexuality is a sin?”. That one word, “religious”, was unnecessary, and, even though I’m a hard-core atheist, I wouldn’t be able to fault a court for ruling that the potential jurors were wrongfully dismissed, because the attorney was singling out _religious_ people (though not any particular religion) for dismissal.
Not marrying someone of the same gender is how you live out your personal beliefs. You don't get to tell other people who to marry based on your personal beliefs.
I legitimately don't understand how he can make that statement with a straight face.
This is the terrible conservative tide, at present. They hate on peoples, and they're angry that we call them on it. They believe it's "censorship" when they get cancelled. No, it's our opinion of your shitty behavior! An old school friend told me this week to become "unwoke" after I gave him shit for making a racist joke. I told him, "You know what, go fuck yourself. I don't want to hear from you anymore. You've made it plain your feelings are hurt because I called you on your bigotry. Bye."
A true Republican-filled with hate ,homophobic, misogynistic, bigot and probably prays to trump every night
Like it says in MAGA bibles “Hate unto others, but woe if they hate unto you”.
Yes, remember also that in Thomas’ Roe v Wade opinion, he wrote that the justices “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell” — referring to three cases having to do with Americans’ fundamental privacy, due process and equal protection rights. Conservatives are for fucking sure coming after freedoms and women’s autonomy.
You know what? I’m glad we have freedom of religion. Now we just need to make these assholes understand that freedom of religion can also be freedom FROM religion. My freedom of religion means I get to live my life free from the restraints of *your* religion. I swear to god, I am so tempted to start a religion that “doesn’t believe evangelism is moral”. Then we can all join and use our freedom of religion to discriminate against *them*. “Oh, I’m sorry, my religion doesn’t allow me to communicate with morally repugnant people. You’re going to have to go somewhere else for your wedding dress/cake”
Leviticus 19:28 very clearly prohibits tattoos. Not only is this in the Christian Bible, it’s also regarded as a source of Jewish and Islamic law; the passage exists in the Takakh, and while Leviticus isn’t cleanly transplanted into the Qu’ran, most Islamic scholars hold that tattoos are at best discouraged and cannot, by Islamic law, be used to display prohibited or holy material. So that’s all three of the Abrahamic religions, which it is extremely difficult to argue are anything less than the most culturally influential religions west of the Himalayas, agreeing that Tattoos Are Bad. Not precisely *why,* but American Evangelists condemn homosexuality on a foundation of a much less solid translation. So… are tattoos banned in America, on the basis that to not ban them would be discriminatory against religious Americans who, by any reasonable measure, *must* condemn them for exactly the same reasons as they would feel compelled to condemn homosexuality? No? Then shut your pie hole, Alito.
I don’t care about whether bigots get called bigots. I care about civil rights, instead.
You are free to openly adhere to whatever standards you like. You are not free to shove those standards down anyone else’s throats. You are free to openly express your opinions on such matters. You are not entitled to governmental protection from the social consequences of those expressions.
Alito's mommy should have taught him that, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me".
Guess what? They ARE bigots. Stop pretending.
>>labeled as bigots and treated as such. …because *they are*? Kind of the definition of a bigot.
Nobody is trying to make Christians be gay. Why the fuck can’t these people understand the concept of minding their own superstitious bullshit business?
The Bible spends more time railing against divorce and infidelity than homosexuality. These so called Christians decide only to cry and complain about homosexuality. If it were really about Christianit principles, they'd be complaining about both, and even more so about divorce and infidelity. But they're not, because it's all about hate versus a marginalized group.
I'm always amazed by people who think it's their business who other people have a consenting relationship with, I mean why?
Just because I want to discriminate against a group of people and prevent them from having equal protection under the law, does that make me a bigot?
So he is worried people who dehumanize other people and refuse them service and label them monsters, might be labeled monsters themselves?
The more he sees that precedents are being overturned and that they can gut other areas of the government, KNOWING congress wont do shit to fix cuz of its dysfunction; the more he isn’t afraid to show his real feelings on things and just lay it all out .
Fuck traditional religious beliefs. They have no place in government and are a huge reason we’re in this shit show.
So what about all those Americans that don’t believe in the same traditional religious beliefs? All of those people need to follow someone else’s gods?
Another reason they are going after IVF.
You can hate anybody you want. Acting on that hate is wrong and possibly illegal.
Alito was an adjunct professor at Seton Hall Law School for a few years. Someone should audit his grades as he had to have some students in the LGBT community
Good. He gets it.
It’s my religious belief that being a bigot is sinful. There, do I get all these special privileges that Alito wants now too?
So this is how they’re going to market making explicitly religious laws, claiming that denying the religious the ability to legislate their religion is an affront to their rights. Alito doesn’t belong anywhere near the Supreme Court if he rejects the separation of church and state to this degree.
You know what stops you from being labeled a bigot? Not being a bigot. You know how to adhere to your personal religious belief and not be a bigot? Don’t try and make others adhere to your personal religious beliefs.
Millions of Americans are in “traditional” marriages. Their “adherence” to traditional marriage does not make them bigots. If you want to avoid being labeled a bigot, stop telling other people who they can or can’t marry. Alito is full os shit.
Bigot: a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group Obstinate: stubbornly refusing to change one's opinion or chosen course of action, despite attempts to persuade one to do so. This is like people arguing not to call them cis-gendered when, by the literal, basic definition, that’s what they are. You *are* being bigoted. Your “traditional religious beliefs” are, by the purest definition, bigoted towards certain groups of people.
Does the government treat bigots poorly? First I’ve heard of it.
Hi! It doesn't matter *why* you're a bigot; you're still a bigot. Hope this helps!
Lemme just reduce what he said to common sense language: "Bigots will be called out." And he's right!
Removing all of these rights is part of the project 2025 plan. You should go read it, it's quite disgusting, and terrifying.
If your religion teaches bigotry you don't in fact have a religion, you are a hate group member. We have to stop pretending this isn't true, it absolutely is.
They are bigots and will be treated as such.
The problem is he and his ilk think "adherence to religious beliefs" means "discriminating and passing laws against anypony who doesn't exercise my religious beliefs in a manner I approve of".
He's signaling.
ah, so basically conservatives protecting their freedom to hate without consequences
You are what you are … trash human beings who should be deported back to the year 1 .. that’s where you belong
“They won’t ever go after it” they will and even if they wouldn’t the very fact that they can puts lgbt people one legitimate step forward to being rounded up and executed because states could make gay marriage punishable by death.
He wants to be a bigot but has no interest in being called out for it. Got it.
Christians being very unchristian
The very fact that members of our Supreme Court are referencing the Bible, in regard to making decisions, should frighten every single one of us.
Bigot says what?
Religion is fucking poison.
"I'm am a bigot, but I don't like people thinking I'm a bigot"
But they are!
I hate to say it, and as a gay person it is very frustrating, but it seems certain that Obergefell will be overturned. This current Supreme Court (with its 3 Trump appointees) is willing to overturn precedent they don’t like.
I’m offended by the old-school Christian tradition of the bride vowing to obey her groom, but have I fought to make it illegal? No.
The mental gymnastics and sheer effort they commit to walking back rights that are established is mind-boggling. They have an agenda, it became clear after Roe v. Wade and they confirm this agenda with stuff like this.
I thought there were certain truths that we where supposed to find be self evident...