A Slippery Slope

[Editorial]

The Trump Supreme Court looks like it is heading down a very slippery slope and they are skidding out of control. They are heard another 

Supreme Court takes case involving refusal to serve gay couples
Associated Press
By Jessica Gresko
February 24, 2022


The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a new clash involving religion and the rights of LGBTQ people in the case of a Colorado web designer who says her religious beliefs prevent her from offering wedding website designs to gay couples.

If the court finds in favor of the web designer that will void all the non-discrimination laws in the country. What that means is that anyone can ignore any non-discrimination law just by declaring that it is against their “Religious Beliefs.” There can be no religious test, how do you prove that it is not their belief?

What about other protected classes?

Could a person discriminate against Black by saying that they believe in the “God Given Right “ to discriminate! Wasn’t the Bible used to justify slavery and segregation? What about discriminate against other religions?

Also if they rule that "Religious Freedom" only applies to us, the LGBTQ+ community isn't that in itself discriminatory by having it affect only us?

Then it opens another question.

Florida's new abortion law violates religious freedom, a synagogue's lawsuit says
NPR
By AP News
June 15, 2022


A new Florida law prohibiting abortion after 15 weeks with some exceptions violates religious freedom rights of Jews in addition to the state constitution's privacy protections, a synagogue claims in a lawsuit.

The lawsuit filed by the Congregation L'Dor Va-Dor of Boynton Beach contends the law that takes effect July 1 violates Jewish teachings, which state abortion "is required if necessary to protect the health, mental or physical well-being of the woman" and for other reasons.

When does life begin? Religions don't agree 

"As such, the act prohibits Jewish women from practicing their faith free of government intrusion and this violates their privacy rights and religious freedom," says the lawsuit, filed Friday in Leon County Circuit Court.

Okay ask yourself this question, if the court rules in favor of the plaintiff that they are exempt from the ban on abortions then what happens if it is your personal religious beliefs that life begins when a fetus can survive out of the womb? Can you legally have a religious exemption because the ban abortion is against your beliefs? Or do you have to be member of an organized religion? And if you have to be a member of an organized religion isn’t that in violation of the First Amendment’s ...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

I can see “Religions Freedom” being used for the indigenous people using peyote, for women to wear a hijab, or for a Sikh man to wear a beard but not to hide discrimination behind.

We already stop certain religious ceremonies, after all we don’t allow human sacrifices, and the courts had what was called a “Lemon Test” to see if a law is neutral to religion. However, it looks like the current court is going to throw that out.

An opinion in the New York Times wrote in The Supreme Court Is About to Ask the Wrong Question About the First Amendment...

Can an artist be compelled to create a website for an event she does not condone? That’s the question the Supreme Court has said it will take up on Monday, when it hears oral arguments in 303 Creative v. Elenis. The answer would seem to be obviously “no.”

But that’s the wrong question. The right question is whether someone who chooses to open a business to the public should have the right to turn away gay customers simply because the service she would provide them is “expressive” or “artistic.” Should an architecture firm that believes Black families don’t deserve fancy homes be permitted to turn away Black clients because its work is “expressive”? Can a florist shop whose owner objects to Christianity refuse to serve Christians? The answer to these questions would seem to be, just as obviously, “no.”

[...]

303 Creative has plenty of freedom to speak or not speak as it wishes. It need not serve the public and it need not design wedding websites featuring content it would not sell to anyone. But the First Amendment does not give it an exemption from laws requiring equal treatment of customers simply because its service is “expressive.”

Otherwise, interior decorators, landscape architects, tattoo parlors, sign painters and beauty salons, among countless other businesses whose services contain some expressive element, would all be free to hang out signs refusing to serve Muslims, women, the disabled, African Americans or any other group. The First Amendment protects the right to have and express bigoted views, but it doesn’t give businesses a license to discriminate.

What a can of worms they could open up!

[/Editorial]