Terthna
Professional Lurker
Which may have unintended consequences, considering that story about BLM potentially being designated a religion.
United States The Supreme Court says no to LGBT discrimination
- Thread starter Tzeentchean Perspective
- Start date
D
Deleted member
Guest
Good, then I would have a constitutional right to refuse to believe in their tenets!
Terthna
Professional Lurker
And it would basically gut any protections against discrimination.
almostinsane
Well-known member
I really think they will. Even Roberts will vote for religious freedom here if for no other reason than his reluctance to not make waves and gutting religious liberty would make waves. There's a reason why he had Gorsuch write the opinion versus someone like Ginsburg.
D
Deleted member
Guest
No, it would just drive communal sortation, and that's already happening, and it's not necessarily bad as a way to encourage coexistence between people with radically different views on life and humanity within the same country.
Bigking321
Well-known member
It's definitely a major blow against originalism, which is the spirit of the law instead of the current literal meaning of text.
I think textualism is still better than just reinterpreting stuff to suit whatever cause a justice wants to pursue but this is just one of those cases where a word in the law has radically changed meanings in modern day, causing a ruling I'm positive the original writers of the law didn't intend.
But fair is fair. It does no good to be glad textualism stops a bunch of crazy rulings just to complain when it just happens to go against you this time.
My main complaint is that this isn't anything the courts should be messing with. It should have just been legislative and just campaigning to get the law changed. But oh well.
There are going to be so many freaking lawsuits against churches and bakerys and whatever... sigh...
I think textualism is still better than just reinterpreting stuff to suit whatever cause a justice wants to pursue but this is just one of those cases where a word in the law has radically changed meanings in modern day, causing a ruling I'm positive the original writers of the law didn't intend.
But fair is fair. It does no good to be glad textualism stops a bunch of crazy rulings just to complain when it just happens to go against you this time.
My main complaint is that this isn't anything the courts should be messing with. It should have just been legislative and just campaigning to get the law changed. But oh well.
There are going to be so many freaking lawsuits against churches and bakerys and whatever... sigh...
D
Deleted member
Guest
And the Supreme Court could still find a constitutional right to freedom of religion that irrevocably trumps the language of any statute.
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
Well, the 1st Amendment may still be a thing
No, this is simply a logical extension of the Civil Rights Act. Gorsuch specifically notes that it is quite legal to discriminate on arbitrary things like being a Yankees fan. This is straightforward textualism, just resulting in a ruling you don't like. If you agree with all of a judges rulings morally, that judge isn't being a judge, he's being a partisan hack. Notably, I'd like to call out Breyer here as the biggest example. He's supposedly a purposivist (i.e. believing in reading a law based on its purpose). Yet he somehow signs concludes that the purpose of the law wasn't to protect Gays and Lesbians? The opposite is a much better argument (though Gorsuch does give a damn good argument that a) the purpose might have actually included LGBTs because of weirdness (specific quote is later down), and b) even if it didn't, the purpose of the text must be subordinate to the text itself when reading a law).
Slightly off. Textualism uses fixed meanings of words (fixed by there common usage when the law was enacted). Gorsuch actually used the defendant's definition of sex for this case. He just found that any discrimination based on sexual orientation implied discrimination based on sex. To quote the case:
And yes, the original writers definitely didn't intend this. First, Gorsuch doesn't give a shit (that's the point of textualism: Damn what the writers wanted, what did they write?). Second, Gorsuch notes that the writer of this part may actually have intended it:
Fortunately, as Gorsuch notes in his opinion, none of the defendants raised a religious defense, so this ruling doesn't cover that. And the Civil Rights act and the RFRA both make religious exceptions and there is a supreme court case coming up on the ministerial exception. I'm not to worried about this leading to problems.
Yeah, texualism doesnt really do any good when the underlying law is terrible. The only thing thats ever really saved us from such bad laws is not taking them seriously at face value: previous judges mostly applying a "reasonable" standard to a law, rather than just going off it as written.
The only reason goldwater wasnt obviously right was because the courts spread out reaching the civil rights obvious end point over several decades.
The only reason goldwater wasnt obviously right was because the courts spread out reaching the civil rights obvious end point over several decades.
And that is judicial activism, which is a problem that textualism is needed to correct.
The only real concern I have here is that until there is genuine protection from frivolous and malicious suits (see Masterpiece Cakes) this will just be another cudgel from the Left to attack anybody who disagrees with their agenda (see Masterpiece Cakes) with no actual consequences to the Leftists behind the attacks.
Having the Supreme Court yet again ultimately decide that yes the first amendment means what it says on the tin in regards to these cases is meaningless if there are no consequences when the Left simply waits a few days and then starts the entire process all over again and completely ignore the adverse ruling (as is currently happening to Masterpiece Cakes!).
Having the Supreme Court yet again ultimately decide that yes the first amendment means what it says on the tin in regards to these cases is meaningless if there are no consequences when the Left simply waits a few days and then starts the entire process all over again and completely ignore the adverse ruling (as is currently happening to Masterpiece Cakes!).
Ultimately, though, anyone can sue anybody for any stupid reason. Frivolous suits are part of the American legal tradition, and I don't see a way to avoid them without tossing out important other factors of American legal tradition. There is something for vexatious litigants, but IDK if that'll be enough.
Normal frivolous lawsuits are one thing, and in many ways are a cost of doing business as such are dismissed as quickly as they are filed. It's when you have a government regulatory body with enforcement authority engaging in the frivolous suits that you have a serious problem, as seen in Masterwork Cakes.
Said government body *lost* at the Supreme Court, was told in very clear terms to cut it out, the ruling was highly comprehensive... and mere weeks later they came after the baker *again* on nearly identical grounds and the entire circus has started over. And there is absolutely no risk to the Leftists involved, because the taxpayers cover all the bills.
The ruling was actually highly specific, from what I recall. It was a punt, that said that in this instance, the government body clearly showed no respect to the man's religion, so they tossed the case. People were annoyed by the punt. So a person went in, asked for a new gay cake (I think it was trans), and now there is a new lawsuit.
So in other words civil rights for me but not for thee, got it.
Personally? No, I was annoyed by the punt, and wanted (and still want) the anti-gay cake maker to win. I am very hopeful for the ministerial exception case in a couple of months. But that doesn't change that what actually happened was very different from a comprehensive ruling that the left just ignored (like with gun rights).
Last edited:
Want to make it clear that I wasn't referring to you, but to Leftists in general. Is why I didn't quote you lol.