The Supreme Court justice is back to complaining about LGBTQ people in a recent opinion from the court.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is complaining that people who oppose homosexuality were being unfairly branded as bigots, despite that being a dictionary definition of bigotry.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a case about whether it is legal to exclude potential jurors based on their religion. The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Jean Finney, who is lesbian, against her longtime employer, the Missouri Department of Corrections, for workplace discrimination and retaliation due to her sexuality. During jury selection for the trial, which Finney won, her lawyer asked the judge to remove three jurors who had expressed beliefs that homosexuality is a sin. Finney’s lawyer argued their religious beliefs would bias them against LGBTQ people.

The state of Missouri appealed the decision, arguing that the jury selection process had been discriminatory on religious grounds. An appeals court sided with Finney, ruling the jurors had been eliminated due to their beliefs about homosexuality, not because they were Christians. Missouri appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, which declined Tuesday to hear the case.

In a statement, Alito said he agreed with the decision not to hear the lawsuit, but warned he felt the case was a harbinger of greater danger.

The appeals court ruling “exemplifies the danger that I anticipated in Obergefell v. Hodges,” Alitio wrote, referring to the landmark 2015 Supreme Court ruling that legalized marriage equality.

“Namely, that Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct will be ‘labeled as bigots and treated as such’ by the government,” he said. “The opinion of the Court in that case made it clear that the decision should not be used in that way, but I am afraid this admonition is not being heeded by our society.”

  • @OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    479 months ago

    The case was not about gay marriage, it was discrimination of a protected class. The court said it’s fair to dismiss jurors who believe the identity of the protected class is a bad thing. Like dismissing misogynists from a sex discrimination case. Even if they came to their misogyny via religion, it gives them a bias in this case.

    Being dismissed for bias doesn’t mean they are bad people, either. The defendant’s brother couldn’t be on the jury because of bias, that doesn’t make him a bad person.

    Luckily this nonsense is the minority view on the court even in a 6-3 world, since his was a minority dissent.

    • @grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      179 months ago

      Being dismissed for bias doesn’t mean they are bad people, either.

      In general, I agree it doesn’t. But in this case, it does.

      • @captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        79 months ago

        Correlation doesn’t imply causation. Both statements that they were dismissed for bias and that they’re bad people are true, but only because they’re linked to the separate true statement of the fact that they’re bigots