Alito, this means you would have a problem with excluding potential jurors in capital murder cases who have a religious objection to the death penalty, right? Right? Hello, is this thing on?
And what about THEIR discrimination against the sane…aka, religion-free people. The justices should recuse themselves. I’m sure hey would if it meant fairness. 🙄
"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..."
LOL! It's the literal definition! "a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."
I mean, he might had said that bigots that don't hide that they are bigots will be recognized as bigots!
The Hebrews were a smallish tribe in a dangerous area, surrounded by greater powers. They needed all the manpower they could get to stave off extinction, and homosexuals don't reproduce. I think of it the way I think of rules against eating pork and shellfish--because without refrigeration it could have fatal effects.
There is a flaw with your theory about eating pork. Before they adopt what will become Yahweh as their principal/only deity, the Israelites ancestors ate pigs. It's why archaeologists love garbage pits so much.
Hebrew law said homosexuals should be put to death, thus reducing manpower, so your argument is flawed on two counts, because homosexuals can and quite often do reproduce without any advanced tech.
There is a theory that Gays exist in mammals because making kids may spread diseases. Gays serve as a "circuit breaker" TO ENSURE REPRODUCTIVE ADULTS capable of raising children.
Too bad about the first point: I love a good theory (even if it turns out to be wrong). But I'm not so convinced about the second point, Strikes me as unlikely back then.
I have a cousin who wouldn't exist if my gay uncle hadn't reproduced the old fashioned way. Just because they aren't attracted to the opposite sex doesn't mean they can't, especially in their teens and 20s.
A cultural expectation that you can get off with or build a life with or love whomever you want as long as you produce 3 or more children would suffice for probably 80-90% of homosexuals.
Early Hebrew teachings didn't say anything about homosexuality but, over time, it changed to homosexuality being against the Torah. Even though a lot of people just tut-tutted about it and didn't do much about it.
Part of what you said is accurate - they needed more Hebrews being born to swell their numbers. (Even if the punishment for homosexuality was death.) But there's more to it than that.
The church also needed more money. The more Hebrews there were, the more tithe money came into the church. And the more money was earned by the common Hebrew man which was needed for trade and to bribe the Romans that harrassed them.
It also meant the more powerful Hebrews could become even more powerful and have more people to rule over.
They also wanted to distance themselves from those cultures that practiced male sodomy as a regular occurance, such as in Greece.
By virtue of the fact that Alito not only believes in mythical beings and superstition, but he believes that these myths should influence the law of the land, makes him wholly unqualified for the position he holds.
It would seem as though Sam Alito doesn't believe in 𝑣𝑜𝑖𝑟 𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒, the process of selecting an UNBIASED JURY. Either that or he thinks that Christians should by default be able to bring their biases and bigotries into the courtroom. WRONG, SAMMY!
One more reason why Alito and the rest of the right wing nut jobs on SCOTUS should be removed from the court, not that they will be. [sigh]
“traditional religious views” Whose traditions? Whose religion? There are thousands of religions and belief systems, but Alito thinks his religion is the default and should be given special privilege. That cannot be reconciled with a fair justice system in a pluralistic society.
Which is remarkable given that Catholics were discriminated against in many places in the US. He simply doesn't see that "traditional religious views" in the US did not include his views, and in some cases were adamantly opposed to his views being promoted.
Dude is not just in denial about whether the leopards will eat his face, but even worse, relatives of his from his grandparents and great-grandparents generations likely have leopard bite scars on their faces, and yet he STILL doesn't think the leopard's gonna eat his face.
Oh, if only Mr. Alito got this upset over his religion's clergy sexually abusing children. Alas, not a peep out of him on the subject (not that we expect any).
Excluding anti-gay jurors in a case involving a lesbian is not religious 'persecution' or discrimination. The jurors affected might say, and believe, that they are impartial, but there is such a thing as unconscious bias that can stay in the background and affect these jurors' deliberations. Alito is wrong to push back on this. But then, Alito is pretty much wrong about most things.
The audacity! A stacked trump court of incompetent boobs, ultra right and overwhelmingly Catholic! But putting someone on the jury who is already extremely biased is a bad idea! A man is feared because he may shoot his ex who is now in a same-sex relationship. So sure put an anti-LGBTQIA on the jury! And the claim that it’s discrimination of religion!! Alito & the rest of these right wing nut cases need to be removed from SCOTUS. They ARE anti-constitution! 🤦🏻
Religion is irrelevant to our laws. In the words of FFRF founder, ANN Gaylor, There is only our natural world. Religion is but a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.
In this case, the court below reasoned that a person who still holds 𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥, 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 views on 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧 morality is presumptively unfit to serve on a jury in a case involving a party who is a 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧. That holding exemplifies the danger that I anticipated in Obergefell v. Hodges…, namely, that Americans who do not hide their adherence to 𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥, 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 views about 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 will be “labeled as bigots and treated as such” by the government... 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 that this admonition is not being heeded by our society.
Alito’s comment was clearly an invitation. This particular case was not a good one to fight the battle over because the DOC didn’t lodge a sufficient objection at the time. So Alito is asking for a better case down the road.
I remember in 2010 or so when the Chicago Sun Times allowed comments that I got into an argument with a RW Christian who insisted that it wasn't bigotry when it was being done for God and it was fine to harass LGBTQ+ if it turned them away from "sin". I pointed out that God-inspired bigotry is still bigotry and by his logic, it was OK to harass Christians to give up their cult to save them from their ignorance.
That's an argument you're not going to win, because it's a difference of premises rather than reasoning. Bigotry is using class membership to inform a decision 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛. Fundie Christians see membership in the 'gay' group to be a choice to do immoral deeds, which makes it relevant to a lot of decisions. The rest of us see it as neither a choice nor implying immoral deeds, so class membership is not relevant to most decisions. We all may agree on what bigotry *is*, but because we and the fundie Christians start from different premises, we end at different conclusions about whether membership in the gay group is relevant to decisions, so different conclusions about whether using class membership is bigotry or justified.
Being Christian is a choice so if they think it's fine to harass people for making the non-choice of being gay then it should be fine to harass people for being Christian.
So, if an atheist, who said he hated, Christian conservatives was excluded from the jury in a trial of a Christian conservative, would Alito say that you can’t exclude this person because of his religious beliefs? That, too, would be religious persecution. However, the six Christian nationalists on the so-called Supreme Court have no problem changing the rules when it suits their Christian agenda.
Good thing there's been no precedent/real-world examples of Christians letting their religious views about homosexuality interfere with their secular life to the detriment/rights of others *cough* Kim Davis *cough*
Given the fact there simply isn't any horror that cannot be justified in the name of faith, this speaks directly to Alito's authoritarian Neo-fascist mindset. If and when the American republic is destroyed from within, it will be done in the name of God and conservatism. Blowing up democracy will be ever so much easier than getting it back once it's gone.
Alito, this means you would have a problem with excluding potential jurors in capital murder cases who have a religious objection to the death penalty, right? Right? Hello, is this thing on?
And what about THEIR discrimination against the sane…aka, religion-free people. The justices should recuse themselves. I’m sure hey would if it meant fairness. 🙄
"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..."
Uhmmm, because they are.
There seem to be areas of the US where being labeled a bigot gets you better treatment from the local government. **cough Alabama cough**
This just in: bigot afraid of being called a bigot for being a bigot! Full story at 11!
Same as "racist" - being CALLED a racist is SOOOOO much more unacceptable than acting like a racist.
But Alito has a point, if people just would stop calling him a bigot, then he wouldn't be called a bigot.
A bigot by any other name would still stink bad enough to make skunks puke.
Alito is in that homophobic group, which is why he was prompted to comment.
LOL! It's the literal definition! "a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."
I mean, he might had said that bigots that don't hide that they are bigots will be recognized as bigots!
The Hebrews were a smallish tribe in a dangerous area, surrounded by greater powers. They needed all the manpower they could get to stave off extinction, and homosexuals don't reproduce. I think of it the way I think of rules against eating pork and shellfish--because without refrigeration it could have fatal effects.
There is a flaw with your theory about eating pork. Before they adopt what will become Yahweh as their principal/only deity, the Israelites ancestors ate pigs. It's why archaeologists love garbage pits so much.
Hebrew law said homosexuals should be put to death, thus reducing manpower, so your argument is flawed on two counts, because homosexuals can and quite often do reproduce without any advanced tech.
There is a theory that Gays exist in mammals because making kids may spread diseases. Gays serve as a "circuit breaker" TO ENSURE REPRODUCTIVE ADULTS capable of raising children.
Too bad about the first point: I love a good theory (even if it turns out to be wrong). But I'm not so convinced about the second point, Strikes me as unlikely back then.
I have a cousin who wouldn't exist if my gay uncle hadn't reproduced the old fashioned way. Just because they aren't attracted to the opposite sex doesn't mean they can't, especially in their teens and 20s.
A cultural expectation that you can get off with or build a life with or love whomever you want as long as you produce 3 or more children would suffice for probably 80-90% of homosexuals.
The opposite is also true; the whole "gay for pay" in porn.
I'm a theology graduate.
Early Hebrew teachings didn't say anything about homosexuality but, over time, it changed to homosexuality being against the Torah. Even though a lot of people just tut-tutted about it and didn't do much about it.
Part of what you said is accurate - they needed more Hebrews being born to swell their numbers. (Even if the punishment for homosexuality was death.) But there's more to it than that.
The church also needed more money. The more Hebrews there were, the more tithe money came into the church. And the more money was earned by the common Hebrew man which was needed for trade and to bribe the Romans that harrassed them.
It also meant the more powerful Hebrews could become even more powerful and have more people to rule over.
They also wanted to distance themselves from those cultures that practiced male sodomy as a regular occurance, such as in Greece.
Very interesting--thanks for that.
Shh. Remember, these people don’t care for truth much. Denial and ignorance prevail.
"Everything is a sin, but some sins matter more than others."
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
To-may-to, to-mah-to.
By virtue of the fact that Alito not only believes in mythical beings and superstition, but he believes that these myths should influence the law of the land, makes him wholly unqualified for the position he holds.
🎯
Cardinal Alito is unhappy that we don't all live under a medieval Catholic government.
He's working on it! 😒
It would seem as though Sam Alito doesn't believe in 𝑣𝑜𝑖𝑟 𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒, the process of selecting an UNBIASED JURY. Either that or he thinks that Christians should by default be able to bring their biases and bigotries into the courtroom. WRONG, SAMMY!
One more reason why Alito and the rest of the right wing nut jobs on SCOTUS should be removed from the court, not that they will be. [sigh]
“traditional religious views” Whose traditions? Whose religion? There are thousands of religions and belief systems, but Alito thinks his religion is the default and should be given special privilege. That cannot be reconciled with a fair justice system in a pluralistic society.
In just Christianity alone, there are 45,000 different sects worldwide.
And we know how Christians have treated one another over the millennia.
Which is why we have the separation clause.
Which is remarkable given that Catholics were discriminated against in many places in the US. He simply doesn't see that "traditional religious views" in the US did not include his views, and in some cases were adamantly opposed to his views being promoted.
Dude is not just in denial about whether the leopards will eat his face, but even worse, relatives of his from his grandparents and great-grandparents generations likely have leopard bite scars on their faces, and yet he STILL doesn't think the leopard's gonna eat his face.
That's part of the problem, he doesn't think the US should be pluralistic.
Then he doesn't understand the US Constitution or basic reality.
He understands the Constitution just fine... he just doesn't 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 it.
Oh, if only Mr. Alito got this upset over his religion's clergy sexually abusing children. Alas, not a peep out of him on the subject (not that we expect any).
Excluding anti-gay jurors in a case involving a lesbian is not religious 'persecution' or discrimination. The jurors affected might say, and believe, that they are impartial, but there is such a thing as unconscious bias that can stay in the background and affect these jurors' deliberations. Alito is wrong to push back on this. But then, Alito is pretty much wrong about most things.
The audacity! A stacked trump court of incompetent boobs, ultra right and overwhelmingly Catholic! But putting someone on the jury who is already extremely biased is a bad idea! A man is feared because he may shoot his ex who is now in a same-sex relationship. So sure put an anti-LGBTQIA on the jury! And the claim that it’s discrimination of religion!! Alito & the rest of these right wing nut cases need to be removed from SCOTUS. They ARE anti-constitution! 🤦🏻
Religion is irrelevant to our laws. In the words of FFRF founder, ANN Gaylor, There is only our natural world. Religion is but a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.
In this case, the court below reasoned that a person who still holds 𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥, 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 views on 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧 morality is presumptively unfit to serve on a jury in a case involving a party who is a 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧. That holding exemplifies the danger that I anticipated in Obergefell v. Hodges…, namely, that Americans who do not hide their adherence to 𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥, 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 views about 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 will be “labeled as bigots and treated as such” by the government... 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 that this admonition is not being heeded by our society.
Hey Alito! Can you spot the difference?
Alito would probably rule that Kim Davis was within her rights to refuse marriage licenses to gay or lesbian couples.
Actually ... strike the word, "probably." 🤦♂️
Alito’s comment was clearly an invitation. This particular case was not a good one to fight the battle over because the DOC didn’t lodge a sufficient objection at the time. So Alito is asking for a better case down the road.
And he is hoping to get an Apple Vision Pro from one of his wealthy, religious donors.
I remember in 2010 or so when the Chicago Sun Times allowed comments that I got into an argument with a RW Christian who insisted that it wasn't bigotry when it was being done for God and it was fine to harass LGBTQ+ if it turned them away from "sin". I pointed out that God-inspired bigotry is still bigotry and by his logic, it was OK to harass Christians to give up their cult to save them from their ignorance.
That's an argument you're not going to win, because it's a difference of premises rather than reasoning. Bigotry is using class membership to inform a decision 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛. Fundie Christians see membership in the 'gay' group to be a choice to do immoral deeds, which makes it relevant to a lot of decisions. The rest of us see it as neither a choice nor implying immoral deeds, so class membership is not relevant to most decisions. We all may agree on what bigotry *is*, but because we and the fundie Christians start from different premises, we end at different conclusions about whether membership in the gay group is relevant to decisions, so different conclusions about whether using class membership is bigotry or justified.
Being Christian is a choice so if they think it's fine to harass people for making the non-choice of being gay then it should be fine to harass people for being Christian.
It's an argument you're not going to win because Christians are fucking stupid. FTFY😇
Except my morality isn't any of their business. It neither harms them or picks their pocket.
So, if an atheist, who said he hated, Christian conservatives was excluded from the jury in a trial of a Christian conservative, would Alito say that you can’t exclude this person because of his religious beliefs? That, too, would be religious persecution. However, the six Christian nationalists on the so-called Supreme Court have no problem changing the rules when it suits their Christian agenda.
If they didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.
Good thing there's been no precedent/real-world examples of Christians letting their religious views about homosexuality interfere with their secular life to the detriment/rights of others *cough* Kim Davis *cough*
Given the fact there simply isn't any horror that cannot be justified in the name of faith, this speaks directly to Alito's authoritarian Neo-fascist mindset. If and when the American republic is destroyed from within, it will be done in the name of God and conservatism. Blowing up democracy will be ever so much easier than getting it back once it's gone.
Yes...remember Sinclair Lewis's prediction that "If fascism comes to America it will come wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
"I Hereby promise to be impartial that everyone is burning in hell except for me because I'm God's special flower, so help me GAWD."