That other SCOTUS decision from last week

Last week I discussed the major decisions handed down by the Supreme Court, student debt loan forgiveness, Sunday work rules for those seeking religious exemption, independent state legislative theory and affirmative action. See link below.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/06/todays-scots-decisions.html

There was one I did not touch upon, as it also came on Friday after I posted and it is the decision concerning the Colorado web designer  who refused to provide a wedding web site for a gay couple due to her religious values.

Now, not withstanding the news that the email which was sent to her requesting that web design, may have been faked, the Court seems to be hanging its judicial hat on the First Amendment's protection for religious liberty. In doing so, they are saying that, in this case, someone whose religion does not recognize gay marriage, has the religious freedom to deny their services from a gay couple. 

Since I do not have access to the justices, specifically the six who formed the majority opinion, I would like to ask these questions.

Is the web designer now required to state that gay people need not contact her for her services? Some kind of disclosure like, gay people need not apply?

And, more critically, does this religious freedom apply to other situations? Housing? Jobs? Education? Clearly, it is far less innocuous for someone to design a web site from their home and provide a link for a gay couple to access it, then get paid, all which could be done without direct interface, than for someone to work, live or go to school with a member of the LGBTQ community. 

I imagine that the Court would not go so far as to allow prejudice to be legal in the case of housing and labor, but why? One could posit that it is easy to find another web designer, but then again, there are other jobs, other places to live, other schools. What is the line here? 

Also, just like sending the abortion question back to the states, didn't "calm the waters" as Justice Alito expected, but instead emboldened the anti-abortion crowd to make abortion illegal for those in blue states also, I expect we will see other suits brought by "Christians" who want to eliminate all contacts with the LGBTQ community by removing or watering down the various discrimination laws that don't allow them to refuse work, housing or education to that community because it goes against their religion. Don't be surprised if some attorney general in a southern state decides to challenge gay marriage in their state, in hopes that this new Court will reverse the previous decision, just as they jettisoned precedent in the Dobbs decision.

When I was younger, I had long hair. During a job interview at a candy manufacturer, I was told I could have the job if I cut my hair. I didn't, there were other jobs. But what about people who don't have the luxury of a visit to the barber, people who can't change their skin color, gender identification, or attraction to same sex individuals. We have seen many SCOTUS decisions protecting the rights of this group, yet, in this case, they are saying too bad, you will just have to find another provider.

Also, isn't gay marriage legal in America? And, isn't there a separation of church and state clause in the Constitution? Why do those who practice a certain religion get to discriminate against an individual who does not share that religious belief, especially when those people are engaging in a legally defined right?

I have read many articles in the recent past about the decline in religious affiliation in America. Upwards of 40% of Americans under the age of 35 belong to no church compared with just 15% of older Americans. Perhaps the exodus has everything to do with hypocrisy, man made religious rules, and an inconsistent message, more than a lack of spirituality or belief in the message of Jesus, Muhammad, Budha, etc.

What is truly sad, is that many Christians celebrated this decision as an affirmation that they don't have to be forced to talk to, work with, or engage with those who don't share their beliefs. Wow. I imagine that had they been alive during the Jim Crow era of separate drinking fountains, schools, buses, etc, they would have celebrated those Supreme Court decisions that allowed such onerous laws, as it wasn't uncommon back then for the bigots of the day to use religion to defend their bias.

I am old enough to have seen this movie before. Social progress followed by a pendulum swing back to prejudice. While the makeup of the current Supreme Court does not provide much hope that future decisions may also endorse legal discrimination via religious beliefs, it is also true that two of the older justices were part of this decision.

Should Alito and Thomas decide to retire during the next presidential term, it is of paramount importance that we elect a democrat, and that we maintain a Democrat majority in the Senate so that any nominee gets a hearing and vote (unlike the dirty trick pulled by McConnell which resulted in Obama being denied his nominee), and that we might move away from the current 6-3 conservative majority, which is no where near a reflection of the electorate. 

Also, just a note here which reflects my bias, we must make sure any new justice is not Catholic, as it appears that the Catholics on this court are not capable of separating their religion from the law.

Speaking of which, my post from last June after the Dobbs decision seems appropriate to reread again. Here is a link.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/06/one-step-forward-for-american-theocracy.html

Finally, The Debate, written about eleven years ago. Funny how the topics change in detail but not in substance.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/04/debate.html