When statements of well-established and indisputable facts about religion are interpreted by the courts as government “hostility” toward religion, free speech rights are curtailed and religious tyranny is on the horizon. That does not bode well for the civil rights of women, people of color, and gender and sexual minorities.
M. J. Murphy
There’s also quite a double standard at play, M. J. Murphy. The Supreme Court dismissed as “frivolous” a case in which a Christian objected to serving black people in his business alongside white people. He based his claim to being exempt from the 1964 Civil Rights Act on his sincerely held religious beliefs.
The Court wasted no time in dismissing that claim as unworthy of their consideration. they did not extend respect to the man’s beliefs, going so far as to label his claim frivolous.
The idea that all religious beliefs must be accorded deference in the public square is not one that could ever stand the test of practicality. Nor is the idea one that the court actually practices. They’re perfectly happy not to respect religious ideas about all sorts of things.
So, why respect religious ideas about discriminating against LGBTQ people?
I don’t think the Court has an answer to that question. This decision is riddled with illogical, untenable reasoning. The “hostility toward religion” argument is particularly lacking in sense.