And You Thought It Couldn’t Get Any Worst

Well guess again!

It can get much worse now that Kavanaugh on the bench.

Anti-LGBT lawsuits already headed Justice Kavanaugh’s way
Washington Blade
By Chris Johnson
October 17, 2018

Precisely on cue with the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, anti-LGBT groups have filed lawsuits challenging LGBT rights that may in the near future serve to test the new justice on his position on the issue.

The complaints — two filed in federal court, one filed in state court — were filed in Texas and seek to challenge the City of Austin’s LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination ordinance and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. agency charged with federal employment civil rights law, over its interpretation of Title VII to prohibit anti-LGBT discrimination in the workforce.

But Austin’s LGBT-inclusive ordinance has been on the books for some time and the EEOC has taken charge of anti-LGBT discrimination for years under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (The EEOC determined in the 2012 decision of Macy v. Holder that federal law bars anti-trans discrimination in employment and in the 2015 decision of Baldwin c. Foxx federal law bars anti-gay discrimination.)

Conspicuously, the two federal lawsuits were filed on Oct. 6, the exact date Kavanaugh was confirmed as a U.S. associate justice to the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh won’t have a chance to act on the newly filed lawsuits anytime soon, but they will likely percolate through the courts, giving anti-LGBT groups the opportunity to file petitions for review.

And here is the kicker…

The federal lawsuit against EEOC asserts the LGBT protections violate the religious freedom of churches under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by forcing them to hire employee who are LGBT despite religious objections of the employer. (Current law doesn’t require churches to hire pastors who are LGBT contrary to religious beliefs, but does prohibit religiously affiliated organizations from engaging in anti-LGBT discrimination for non-ministerial positions.)
[…]
The religious freedom claims in the lawsuits may be seeking to capitalize on Kavanaugh’s remarks during his confirmation hearing, when Kavanaugh said in response to questions from conservative senators like Ted Cruz (R-Texas) that religious freedom should be protected in the “public square.”

“The Framers understood the importance of protecting conscience,” Kavanaugh said. “It’s akin to the free speech protection in many ways. No matter what God you worship, or if you worship no God at all, you are equally American…If you have religious beliefs, religious people, religious speech, you have just as much right to be in the public square and to participate in public programs as others do. You can’t be denied just because of religious status.”

Okay, up until now the test if a law violated the First Amendment was if a law was religiously neutral; in other words if the law was not targeted at a specific religion. A law like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was religiously neutral it didn’t promote or hinder a religion.

Cornell Law School writes in part,

In interpreting and applying the Free Exercise Clause, the Court has consistently held religious beliefs to be absolutely immune from governmental interference. But it has used a number of standards to review government action restrictive of religiously motivated conduct, ranging from formal neutrality to clear and present danger to strict scrutiny. For cases of intentional governmental discrimination against religion, the Court still employs strict scrutiny. But for most other free exercise cases it has now reverted to a standard of formal neutrality. “[T]he right of free exercise,” it has stated, “does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a ‘valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).’ ”[My emphasis]

But now that is being twisted.

Now the judges appointed by the Republicans are saying that “neutral laws” like non-discrimination acts can be ignored if it “violates your religion.” So what this means is that anyone can disregard that they don’t like by claiming it is against their religion.

Right now the Republican are focusing on us, LGBT people but their argument I see being used to discriminate against blacks, Muslims, Jews, and other minorities. We are on track to become like Saudi Arabia, and Iraq that are theocracies overseen by oligarchies.

---

I am away this morning teaching two classes in Public Health down at Southern Connecticut State University.