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.”

  • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    I think there’s already a federal law enshrining gay marriage, so we’re fortunate there at least.

    It wouldn’t surprise me if they tried to say that law was unconstitutional, but the backlash from doing so would make the backlash from abortion look like a wave in a kiddie pool.

    • III@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I assume the argument for it being unconstitutional is because it might make an old white man not get the deserved appreciation for his personal opinion in public. We can’t take that away from them. \s