Say The Magic Words...

No, the duck doesn't come down, but you get your “Get Out of Jail Free” card. All you have to do is say, “It is against my religious beliefs,” and just like that, you can discriminate against us!

Can you imagine a real estate agent refusing to sell you a house because you belong to a protected class? Saying, “We are not going to sell you this house because you're Black, and doing so would be against my religion”? Then why is it okay to refuse to sell to a same-sex couple? Because that is the direction the Supreme Court is heading!

What's behind Supreme Court rulings for religious rights in LGBTQ+ cases?

Some Supreme Court justices may view nondiscrimination rules against LGBTQ+ people as more about forcing beliefs on others than protecting vulnerable groups.

By Maureen Groppe

USA TODAY

Oct. 24, 2026

A Supreme Court that in recent years has ruled again and again in favor of faith groups is expected to be sympathetic to the Roman Catholic Church in the next big religious liberty case the justices will consider.

The court on Nov. 3 will debate whether Catholic preschools in Colorado must accept children of gay parents if taxpayers are funding the school.

The case pits religious freedoms against nondiscrimination rules about sexual orientation, and Justice Samuel Alito's approach to similar cases could offer a guide as to why the 6-3 conservative court might be inclined to side with the religious preschools.

In his recent book, Alito − who is perhaps the court's biggest proponent of religious liberty − suggests such nondiscrimination rules are more about forcing beliefs on others than protecting vulnerable groups.

“The couple that came to his shop was given a free cake by another bakery, and celebrity chefs jumped to the couple’s defense,” Alito wrote. “What we see in these and other cases is a refusal to live in peace with those who violate the new moral code.”

When did the Constitution become a “moral code”? He went on to say, according to USA Today...

No same-sex couple had tried to use the foster care agency and, if they had, the agency would have referred them to another service that would have been happy to help, Alito said.

“But that did not satisfy the city,” he wrote. “The very existence of an organization that expressed disapproval of same-sex marriage was unacceptable.”

So, according to the Supreme Court justice, it is okay to put additional burdens on a protected class because of religious discrimination! Say a gay couple wants to adopt a child... in their county, the adoption program is run by a church, so they have to drive to the next county! But it would be wrong if they said that to an Asian couple.

I think the root cause of these rulings lies not in the Constitution but rather in the justices' religious beliefs. They believe that being LGBTQ+ is a choice! They reject all the scientific evidence and believe in one little sentence written over 2,000 years ago: “Man shall not lie with man.”

A Gallup poll found  that 35% of Republicans considered gay or lesbian relationships morally acceptable, compared with 81% of Democrats.

We seen this before, where the courts chose the Bible to discriminate, History News Network wrote about "How the Bible was used to justify slavery, abolitionism"

Henry G. Brinton, a pastor at Fairfax Presbyterian Church in Virginia, writes that the Bible was used a weapon by both the North and the South. Brinton says some contemporary Americans are making the same mistake their Civil War ancestors did by twisting the Bible to support their own battle cries.

And now they are doing the same thing to us! Mining the Old Testament for anything that could be used against us!

Trump’s Lower Court Judges and Religion: An Initial Appraisal

The Journal of Legal Studies

Stephen J. ChoiFollow

Mitu GulatiFollow

Eric A. Posner, University of Chicago

Abstract

It is widely believed that President Donald J. Trump’s first-term judicial appointments reflect a strategy of appeasing evangelical Christians and other religious groups that favor a more conservative, Christian judiciary and that in pursuing this strategy Trump sacrificed quality. We explore this theory by examining the biographies and credentials of Trump’s lower court nominees and the voting records of his circuit court appointments in free-exercise cases. We find that Trump’s appointments to the lower courts have stronger or more numerous religious affiliations and are affiliated with the Federalist Society and the National Rifle Association at high rates but are no less well credentialed than other judges. We also find that Trump’s circuit court appointments more frequently vote in favor of Christian plaintiffs and less frequently vote in favor of Muslim plaintiffs in free-exercise cases than judges appointed by other Republican presidents and by Democratic presidents.

Hugh Hewitt: “Will you commit to voters tonight that religious liberty will be an absolute litmus test for anyone you appoint, not just to the Supreme Court, but to all courts?” Donald Trump: “Yes, I would.” (New York Times 2016)

Now we are paying the price of religious discrimination, all they have to do is say the magic words... "It is against my religious beliefs!" When they rebrand it as a "religious issue," they flip the script entirely. Suddenly, the person discriminating is cast as the victim, and the person being denied service or rights is painted as the aggressor infringing on someone else's beliefs. Just like Trump's DEI that flipped the non-discrimination laws on its head!