Supreme Court Justices Say Obergefell a ‘Problem’ for Religious Liberty

[JimG]

From the National Catholic Register:

WASHINGTON — Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito on Monday said that the Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling is already posing problems for religious freedom.

“By choosing to privilege a novel constitutional right [to same-sex marriage] 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,” the justices wrote in an opinion published Monday.

“Until then, Obergefell will continue to have ‘ruinous consequences for religious liberty,’” they warned.

LINK

 

[goout]

“Davis may have been one of the first victims of this Court’s cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision, but she will not be the last,” the justices wrote.

“Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other antidiscrimination laws.”

The Church will lose on the religious freedom issue at some point, and be forced out of the public arena.
That will include it’s property and it’s public expression of beliefs. Writings, speech, use of property.
First, the Church will be forced to give up it’s tax exempt status because it denies public use of it’s facilities. Then Church buildings will be coopted by the state for blanket public use when the Church refuses to allow certain ceremonies.
It’s just a matter of time.
If you think that’s alarmist or foolish, take a look at what Obergfell is, and how it codifies un-reason into rights and law. When we lose reason, anything is possible.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

As much as everybody wants to believe Thomas and Alito, what they wrote is dicta.

In any event, going beyond the dicta they wrote and predicting huge sky-is-falling scenarios is neither realistic or helpful. I realize that many on this forum love to see gloom and doom for the Church around every corner though, so such posts and views are popular. Have at it if you enjoy it.

 

[jredden92]

They aren’t forcing the Catholic church to accept gay marriage…

 

[jredden92]

I thought all this law did was allow gay marriage through the courts. It isn’t through any church.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

because it denies public use of it’s facilities.

People that have no regard for the Church do not prefer to use Church facilities.

 

[JimG]

In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. discussed religious liberty concerns.

“Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty,” Roberts wrote. “Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority— actually spelled out in the Constitution.”

more:

“Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”

 

[AlNg]

Roberts wrote. “Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith

Maybe, but not some of the Roman Catholic colleges. i get an alumni magazine from a Roman Catholic college and they have congratulated their graduates who enter into SS marriages. They even have pictures of the celebrations. And a candidate for President who says he is an Irish Catholic has officiated at a SS wedding.

 

[JimG]

That is so sad.

 

[billsherman]

In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. discussed religious liberty concerns.

“Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty,” Roberts wrote. “Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority— actually spelled out in the Constitution.”

Does this mean that people who support same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith (I’m thinking Reform and Conservative Jews, many Protestants, and others), are not harmed when they can’t freely exercise their religion?

Catholic morality is fantastic and all, but it is certainly not universally accepted.

I have Jewish friends who are concerned that their religious freedom will be denied if Christian morality is imposed on them.

Separation of church and state is a good idea in a multi-faith society like ours. It is in fact a necessary idea.

 

[signit]

JimG:

Roberts wrote. “Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith

Maybe, but not some of the Roman Catholic colleges. i get an alumni magazine from a Roman Catholic college and they have congratulated their graduates who enter into SS marriages. They even have pictures of the celebrations. And a candidate for President who says he is an Irish Catholic has officiated at a SS wedding.

I agree with the Church and the posters on marriage.

But I can see why a college would do this.

That graduate who entered into a SS marriage still graduated from the college fair and square. That person paid for their education fair and square, maybe at great sacrifice to themselves and their families. So I’d support their having the same rights and privileges as an alumnus/a that someone else has.

 

[Nepperhan]

As much as everybody wants to believe Thomas and Alito, what they wrote is dicta.

Yes, this thread is inaccurate. SCOTUS did not say a thing. The Supremes can only act on cases in controversy; the court does not have the jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions.

Basically, Thomas and Alito were running their mouths. The court has not said a thing on any issue by refusing to take up the clerk’s appeal.

 

[goout]

goout:

because it denies public use of it’s facilities.

People that have no regard for the Church do not prefer to use Church facilities.

You might be surprised.
People with no respect for religious conviction can also use any bakery they’d like. But they don’t. It’s not enough simply have the cake.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Does this mean that people who support same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith (I’m thinking Reform and Conservative Jews, many Protestants, and others), are not harmed when they can’t freely exercise their religion?

Exactly. This is one heck of a rabbit hole.
Aren’t the FLDS sects oppressed to a greater degree by prohibitions on polygamy? Are not Jehovah Witnesses oppressed when courts and/or agencies force their children to receive life saving medical treatments? What about Hindus’ oppression via Outback and Ruth Chris?

 

[goout]

JimG:

In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. discussed religious liberty concerns.

“Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty,” Roberts wrote. “Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority— actually spelled out in the Constitution.”

Does this mean that people who support same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith (I’m thinking Reform and Conservative Jews, many Protestants, and others), are not harmed when they can’t freely exercise their religion?

Catholic morality is fantastic and all, but it is certainly not universally accepted.

I have Jewish friends who are concerned that their religious freedom will be denied if Christian morality is imposed on them.

Separation of church and state is a good idea in a multi-faith society like ours. It is in fact a necessary idea.

The issue is not whether same sex couples can exercise their beliefs, it’s about their right to impose their beliefs on someone else. Like force someone to bake a cake for them. Etc…
The county clerk in question, they could have handed the application off to someone else. Then rights of both are respected.

 

[Pattylt]

What about Hindus’ oppression via Outback and Ruth Chris

I’m unfamiliar with this…could you explain? I realize these restaurants sell beef which is against Hindu religion but so does every restaurant…what happened in these restaurants?

Thanks!

 

[billsherman]

The issue is not whether same sex couples can exercise their beliefs, it’s about their right to impose their beliefs on someone else.

Wouldn’t a state ban on same-sex marriage (which is what the SCOTUS justices would allow), prohibit homosexual Jewish people from getting married? (hint: it would!) Wouldn’t that impose the beliefs of certain Christians on them?

Mixing Church and state is a terrible idea in a multi-faith society.

 

[signit]

HerCrazierHalf:

What about Hindus’ oppression via Outback and Ruth Chris

I’m unfamiliar with this…could you explain? I realize these restaurants sell beef which is against Hindu religion but so does every restaurant…what happened in these restaurants?

Thanks!

Maybe . . .

Outback and Ruth Chris sell beef.

Somebody might believe that eating beef is morally wrong according to their religion and they want to prevent other people from doing it. So if the government allows Outback and Ruth Chris to sell beef so other people can eat it, that’s somehow violating their “religious freedom.”

 

[goout]

goout:

The issue is not whether same sex couples can exercise their beliefs, it’s about their right to impose their beliefs on someone else.

Wouldn’t a state ban on same-sex marriage (which is what the SCOTUS justices would allow), prohibit homosexual Jewish people from getting married? (hint: it would!) Wouldn’t that impose the beliefs of certain Christians on them?

Mixing Church and state is a terrible idea in a multi-faith society.

Do you agree that laws express the convictions (or “beliefs”) of people who make them? Even secularists, who disingenuously claim they are not imposing their beliefs, are doing that very thing when they advocate for their causes.
Laws are just and beliefs ought to be respected in the degree that they are true and good. There are beliefs that none of us want codified into law I’m sure.

 

[billsherman]

Do you agree that laws express the convictions (or “beliefs”) of people who make them?

Sometimes. I mean, how often does that actually come up? The vast majority of laws have no relation to religious beliefs at all (is there a religious position on speed limits, or parking zones?)

They shouldn’t, of course. Lawmakers should make laws for everyone not only for certain Christians.

Some deeply religious people hold support for same-sex marriage as an important tenet of their faith (something Chef Justice Roberts callously ignored). Making a law to protect the beliefs of certain Christians to deny same-sex marriage, would absolutely harm homosexual Conservative Jews (among many others) who wish to get married.

Perhaps church and state shouldn’t mix in a multi-faith society.