Friday, February 23, 2024

Well They Are.

Marriage equality doesn’t hurt anyone, no one is bring forced into a same-sex marriage.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said he'd anticipated that Americans would be called bigots unless they hid their religious views on homosexuality.
USA Today
By Maureen Groppe
February 20, 2024


Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito attempted an “I told you so” on Tuesday when he criticized a judge’s dismissal of potential jurors in a workplace discrimination case because they believed homosexuality is a sin.

Alito said that’s exactly the type of outcome he warned against when, against his objections, the Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage.

Alito said he’d anticipated that Americans would be labeled as bigots unless they hid their traditional religious beliefs about “homosexual conduct.”

The court had made clear the gay marriage decision should not be used in that way, Alito said, “but I am afraid this admonition is not being heeded by our society.”

Alito was writing about the Supreme Court’s rejection of an appeal of a workplace bias lawsuit against the Missouri Department of Corrections by an employee, Jean Finney, who is a lesbian.
Well I don’t know how to put it to you Justice Alito but you are a bigot. When you discriminate against someone because of who they love by definition you’re a bigot. You hide behind your religion but that doesn’t mean you are not a bigot.
While Alito agreed with his colleagues that the appeal should be rejected because of other factors, he criticized the trial judge’s decision to reject some jurors for their religious beliefs.

“When a court, a quintessential state actor, finds that a person is ineligible to serve on a jury because of his or her religious beliefs, that decision implicates fundamental rights,” he wrote.

The Missouri Court of Appeals said the questions asked of jurors appropriately focused on whether they had strong feelings about homosexuality because Finney’s sexual orientation was at the heart of her claim that she’d been harassed and mistreated.  

Other prospective jurors who identified as religious or Christian but did not express strong views on homosexuality were not eliminated.
When I had jury duty, there was a case about selling marijuana and the judge asked if we used marijuana, some brave soul stood up and said he did. The judge looked over his glasses and asked “Does that keep you from an impartial verdict?” The prospective juror said that he could hear the case impartially. The judge let him stay in the jury pool.

From what I read the judge did ask “Does that keep you from an impartial verdict?” and the prospective juror said it did.
The religious rights group Alliance Defending Freedom which has filed several successful religious appeals at the Supreme Court in recent years, had also asked the Supreme Court to weigh in.

In the majority opinion on same-sex marriage authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2015, he emphasized that “religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.”
If under oath they say that they can be impartial then I don’t they they can be blocked from sitting on the jury, but if they say that they can’t say they can be impartial then I don’t think they should be allowed on to serve on a jury.



More on the personhood of embryos... the long term goals of the Republican party is to make us a Christian Nation like "The Handmaiden's Tale" look how long the Republicans have been at trying to all abortions illegal.
Newsweek
By James Bickerton US News Reporter
February 23, 2024


A video of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett declining to say whether a ban on in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment would be constitutional during her 2020 confirmation hearing has gone viral on X, formerly Twitter.

It follows the Supreme Court of Arizona ruling on February 16 that frozen embryos should be considered children under state law, in a move that led Alabama's largest hospital to pause IVF treatment, citing fears this could lead to their medical practitioners receiving criminal charges.

On Thursday Kyle Griffin, an executive producer on discussion show The Weekend on MSNBC, shared a clip from Barrett's Senate confirmation hearing, adding: "Flashback: During her confirmation hearing in 2020, Amy Coney Barrett refused to rule out criminalizing IVF."

[…]

During the hearing Barrett, a Donald Trump appointee, was asked whether "criminalizing" IVF treatment would be legal by Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat.

Barrett replied: "Senator I've repeatedly said, as has every other nominee who's sat in this seat, that we can't answer questions in the abstract. That would have to be decided in the course of the judicial process.
The 19th News wrote that Nikki Haley put it this way,
Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley said Wednesday that she sees embryos created through in-vitro fertilization as “babies,” just days after a ruling out of Alabama that fertility treatment advocates say could disrupt access to the procedure.
[...]

 Asked if the Alabama ruling could impact access to IVF treatments, Haley said “we need to be incredibly respectful and sensitive about it.” Haley went on to suggest that women and their partners should be presented with options and “make the decision that’s best for your family.” If conservative courts or legislature deem that embryos have personhood rights, fertility treatment patients could quickly lose that decision-making power.  
You know that there are many, many religions that believe life begins at birth such as the Jewish faith and what about sincerely held personal religious beliefs don't they count? Or do only the views of evangelical Christian beliefs count.

You can watch the video of the question here.

So this ban is not something that popped up out the blue, they have been working toward that goal for years.

No comments:

Post a Comment