The Supreme Court Anti-LGBTQ+ Bias

But it is getting closer to reality, it is a very strong possibility accord to justices Kavanaugh and Sotomayor, read what Justice Kavanaugh  said,

“If we think that the prior precedents are seriously wrong, if that, why then doesn’t the history of this court’s practice with respect to those cases tell us that the right answer is actually a return to the position of neutrality and — and not stick with those precedents in the same way that all those other cases didn’t?”

They are all primed with court cases to overturn marriage equality and same-sex relationships.

Kavanaugh cites landmark gay rights cases in argument about abortion restrictions
Lawyers who argued for LGBTQ rights in those landmark cases — Obergefell v. Hodges and Lawrence v. Texas — were conflicted on the validity of Justice Kavanaugh’s argument.
NBC Out
By Matt Lavietes
December 3, 2021


Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed to suggest earlier this week that landmark LGBTQ cases could support overturning federal abortion rights.

The Supreme Court heard 90 minutes of oral arguments Wednesday concerning a Mississippi law that would ban almost all abortions in the state after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
[…]
The crux of Wednesday’s oral arguments centered around whether the justices should preserve or walk back on precedent, a court decision that is considered authority for subsequent cases involving similar or identical circumstances. The court’s liberal justices warned that reversing a decades-old ruling would politicize the country’s highest court.

However, citing two landmark gay rights cases — Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state laws criminalizing consensual same-sex activity in 2003, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which resulted in the legalization of same-sex marriage across the United States in 2015 — Kavanaugh suggested that overruling the court’s previous opinions was standard procedure.

Also speaking up about the concern of overturning other long held landmark case but without the glee that Justice Kavanaugh holds is Justice Sotomayor, she issued this warning.

Sotomayor Says Abortion Case Imperils LGBTQ Rights
Bloomberg Equality
By Kimberly Robinson
December 1, 2021


Supreme Court justices asked whether a ruling in favor of Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban could call into question other seemingly settled constitutional rights, from the use of contraception, to the criminalization of sodomy, to the more recently recognized right to same-sex marriage.
[...]
The Supreme Court has recognized other implicit rights including several under the “right to privacy,” which itself isn’t explicitly in the text of the Constitution.

If the court does an about-face on abortion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned the high court could face similar challenges to other rights grounded in the same principles.

Many of the rulings of the Supreme Court that set precedents go back to a 1965 Supreme Court ruling from a case here in Connecticut.

In the 1965 ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut, the court said that the Constitution creates “zones of privacy” even though such a right isn’t explicit in the text. Those zones exist within the “penumbras” of the specific rights in the Bill of Rights, the court said.

Sotomayor noted on Wednesday some of the rights the court has “discerned” from the Constitution.

This is where it gets scary for us.

The case of Lawrence v. Texas where the government has no business with what goes on in the bedroom is in jeopardy.

The antipodal of GLAD and Lambda Legal, the Alliance Defending Freedom which has filed anti-LGBTQ+ court cases and sponsored anti-LGBTQ+ legislation has cases ready to be filed to the Supreme Court. The NBC article when on to say…

But if the court does overrule the landmark abortion law, some legal experts warn that previous rulings, including the landmark LGBTQ decisions, would be in danger.

“You can be sure that the Alliance Defending Freedom has the lawsuit ready to file the day after the Supreme Court issues an opinion broadly overruling Roe,” Katherine Franke, the director of the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law at Columbia Law School, said referring to a Christian law firm with a decadeslong track record of litigating against LGBTQ rights. “They will file the next day challenging Obergefell and even Lawrence. I have every confidence that that is what they’re to do.”

We can expect more cases coming before the Supreme Court that will decimate our rights and try to force us back into the closet, and back into the time of "Father Knows Best."

---

Then we have the “Religious Freedom” that some of the justices think that the Constitution allows anyone to do anything in the name of “Religious Freedom” and that they are exempt from laws.

Neil Gorsuch's terrifying paragraph

The Hill

By Andrew Koppelman

December 5, 2021

I am terrified by a paragraph that Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a few weeks ago. You should be, too. He and two other justices think the Constitution forbids states from imposing, on religious dissenters, the kind of vaccination requirements that freed the United States from diphtheria, measles and polio. If these judges have their way, those diseases may come back.

[…]

Now here is the paragraph. In October, the Court declined to block Maine’s requirement that health care workers be vaccinated against the coronavirus notwithstanding their religious objections. Gorsuch, dissenting (joined by Thomas and Alito), wrote: 

I accept that what we said 11 months ago remains true today — that “[s]temming the spread of COVID–19” qualifies as “a compelling inter­est.” At the same time, I would acknowledge that this interest cannot qualify as such forever. Back when we decided Roman Catholic Diocese, there were no widely distributed vac­cines. Today there are three. At that time, the country had comparably few treatments for those suffering with the disease. Today we have additional treatments and more appear near. If human nature and history teach anything, it is that civil liberties face grave risks when governments proclaim indefinite states of emergency.

Remember that General George Washington ordered his troops to get vaccinated against smallpox!

The preamble to the U.S, Constitution sates…

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The preamble sets the goals of the nation, and notice the phrase “promote the general Welfare” by allowing people to not get vaccinated is not promoting the general welfare of the people.

~~~~~~~

Remember that these justices were hand picked because of their biases, they are strongly evangelical Christians who are anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ+ and they believe that the Bible supersede the Constitution.