Samuel Alito blames marriage equality for America’s ‘decisive’ turn ‘against religious liberty’
5 days ago by Sunflier to c/politics
Conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito says the ruling legalizing marriage equality nationwide marked “perhaps the decisive point” in America’s turn “against religious liberty.”
In his new book So Ordered, Alito focuses on Obergefell v. Hodges. The 5-4 decision was a landmark in civil rights, establishing a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry nationwide. But Alito, who dissented from the 2015 ruling, portrays it as a turning point against religious freedom.
Alito points to disputes involving LGBTQ+ rights as evidence that “support for religious liberty has cratered.” He cites cases involving businesses seeking religious exemptions from requirements governing services for same-sex couples or employee health coverage, including those that refuse to provide wedding services to gay couples or seek to limit health care for employees based on religious beliefs.
It’s their deep love of Sharia Christianity
Also pedophilia
They want to rape everyone one way or the other. If not physically, they still do it economically and emotionally.
It's the harm they cause that gets them off. Children are just the most vulnerable, so destroying their innocence feels the best to these monsters.
It's not about being sexually attracted to children. Like with most sex crimes, it's about the power dynamic.
This comment alone should be disqualifying as it clearly shows Alito's interpretation of "religious liberty" as the right to impose your religious views on other people, completely nullifying the separation of church and state
That's the goal. Gorsuch has openly talked about his fucked up interpretation of the first amendment that somehow allows State churches.
Alito doesn't seem as impassioned about the subject, if only because he doesn't seem to have a single original thought in his head. Read anything he wrote and compare it to the Fox news talking points that day, and it's a 100% match.
Uhhhuh.... Well, he makes a very compelling argument for political violence, though.
Plus, at a more conceptual level, he's confused correlation with causation.
Surely, it's more likely that legalized gay marriage and intolerance of the homophobia of Christianity are both driven by society becoming more tolerant of homosexuality.
It's scary to think that there are powerful people who are unable to reason at even the most basic level.
Christian supremacy is not the same thing as religious freedom, you fucking knob
No no, not whatever flavor. Just the one. The others are crazy!
If your religion forbids you from providing service for someone because of their sexuality, you and your religion is the problem.
Shut the fuck up, Alito.
If Trollito's version of "religious liberty" means special privileges for xtians, then, well, no fucking thanks, asshole.
If your religion requires you to hate and condemn and persecute others for their mere existence, for circumstances far from their control, for the who they love, what they look like, and where they came from, you worship evil, and no I will not support your right to harm others because it's your "Faith." And for those who think that's persecution, good. Because bad ideas deserve to be persecuted. You don't have to hold those beliefs. That's a choice. If you value hate more than you love your neighbours, then you've made a choice. Make better choices.
And stop calling yourself a Christian. I may not believe in any mythology, but there's nothing more disgusting than watching people twist old myths into an excuse for cruelty, and I don't care if it's Christian Extremists, Islamic Extremists, or Heathen Extremists pretending to worship Odin. Cosplaying a zealot is not exercising "Religious liberty", you're just a sadist whatever your rationalization is.
If your liberty requires the stifling of other’s liberty, then it’s not liberty you see at all.
If you make certain words have the opposite meaning it often helps explain their position. Marriage equality took a decisive turn against religious liberty oppression
You might be confused about what he's talking about when he says that people have turned against religious liberties, given no one is telling people that they can't worship, churches aren't being burnt down, and many directly religious or religion supporting (unconstitutional) laws are popping up all over the country. But he means the religious liberty to discriminate against Gays and Trans people. Which, first of all, get fucked Alito. Second, what the fuck are you whining about? Those tides are already turning in you bigots' favor (for now). But thanks for announcing you and your colleagues' next agenda item, I guess.
He's right! America has turned against "religious liberty."
You don't have the religious liberty to follow your Holy Book. Because it says you can murder me, you see. That's bad.
You can't torture heretics and witches. You can't steal from pagans and set their homes on fire. You can't sell your children into slavery. You can't marry a 6-year-old
Sorry, Abrahamics. You don't have the liberty to follow your religion, because it's a murderous blood cult (Judaism, Christianity, Islam).
And some day, God willing, you'll have to pay taxes, you blood sucking parasites.
SCOTUS Justice who doesn't understand the First Amendment, because he doesn't need it. He rules based on Vibes.
Sometime after the midterms are over I really hope this fucking walking fossil just up and dies. Just imagine thinking that outlawing bigotry is the worst thing that happened to religious "freedom". This guy is an absolute piece of goddamn shit. Both him and that fucking Uncle Tom.
Oh yeah well fuck your religious liberty cunt, you just weaponize it for political purposes anyways
I’ll just stop at fuck your religion.
God damn, he is such a fucking idiot.
"Religious liberty"... That's a grade-A oxymoron right there.
Alito is to busy sucking trumps balls to know what’s happening in the real world. What a fucking cunt.
Oh, FUCk YOU, Sam!
Alito points to disputes involving LGBTQ+ rights as evidence that “support for religious liberty has cratered.” He cites cases involving businesses seeking religious exemptions from requirements governing services for same-sex couples or employee health coverage, including those that refuse to provide wedding services to gay couples or seek to limit health care for employees based on religious beliefs.
Corporations are people, and people are not people. That's the "culture of life."
I don't often wish bad things to happen to people. But if this guy crocked tomorrow, I wouldn't be upset.
Maybe if religious types weren't so anti gay nobody would care.
Your Supremes are supremely evil, shitty people. Why are so many truly horrid people just able to walk freely among you all? Their lives should be hell.
They'll publish anything these days. His "book" is just a shitty middle school level essay and by his age he ought to be ashamed to so confidently state such an opinion in those terms. This pathetic sophomore is meant to uphold the constitution, not some religious dogma.
What people will rightly take away from this deplorable example is that supreme court judges are nothing special. They're not more moral, more intelligent, nor do they hold greater understanding of the constitution than anyone else who actually read the full document. And such a takeaway is called disgrace. His actions and existence damage the reputation of the court.
The only reason I wouldn't want him to resign in shame (if he can experience shame) is that his successor will be appointed for loyalty to trump and not qualifications, which is definitely a side grade to the current state.
Happy holidays to him and his family. May lady non-binary God watch over him
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
The ruling gives freedom, you are free to marry whoever you want.
If you and your religion preach to not marry the same sex, then you are free to follow that rule for yourself.
You are however not free to force your religious views on others. Hasn't he heard about separation of church and state? Go back to law school.
Conservatives are always eager to force their views on others.
save