Discussion about this post

User's avatar
oraxx's avatar

This isn't about protecting anyone's rights. This is the attempt to enshrine Christian privilege in law. There isn't much of anything that cannot be justified in the name of religion, and this decision would open the door to a very slippery slope.

Expand full comment
Val Uptuous NotAgain's avatar

I’m suspecting this won’t be the open and shut case some folks expect of the SCROTUS.

On the one hand, this is about Christian privilege and expanding it. Something the SCROTUS is wont to do in the majority of its decisions.

On the other hand, this is also about corporate control. Sure this case is a government entity, but the effects will be felt across the corporate world. Putting burdens on businesses is about the only thing the corrupt in our government will actually stand up to on principle. Their owner donors won’t stand for it, and if Clarence Thomas doesn’t get his luxury vacation he gets mighty grumpy.

So, I am going to bet on SCROTUS making the right decision for all the wrong reasons. Unless they can carve out exceptions for government vs. private corporations, then all bets are off.

Expand full comment
276 more comments...

No posts