Justice Alito Renews Criticism of Landmark Ruling on Same-Sex Marriage

[lapucelle]

Justice Alito Renews Criticism of Landmark Ruling on Same-Sex Marriage

In a statement, the justice raised concerns that those with “traditional religious views” would be “‘labeled as bigots and treated as such’ by the government.”

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. on Tuesday renewed his criticisms of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision recognizing the right to same-sex marriage, saying that people who oppose homosexuality risk being unfairly “labeled as bigots and treated as such.”

The justice included his warning in a five-page statement explaining why the court had rejected a request to hear a Missouri case about people removed from a jury after voicing religious objections to gay relationships. The case, Justice Alito wrote, “exemplifies the danger” from the court’s 2015 decision, Obergefell v. Hodges.

The ruling, he added, shows how “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.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/20/us/alito-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html

========================================

For Alito's full statement, see page 25 in the SC orders list document:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v. JEAN FINNEY
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI , WESTERN DISTRICT

No. 23–203. Decided February 20, 2024

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Statement of JUSTICE ALITO respecting the denial of certiorari.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022024zor_7647.pdf

[Irish_Dem]

1. Is this the next step, make same sex marriages illegal?

[lapucelle]

2. It sure seems like it.

[Irish_Dem]

3. I wonder when the public will wake up.

Maybe they will just accept it all. Like the people in Russia and China do.
They have given up, they know they have no power.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

4. While Sam is at it, might as well overturm Loving v. Virginia too.

See how Ole Clarence reacts.

Because those opposed to the races getting hitched will surely raise a bigoted voice or two saying that there is NOTHING in the Bible that ordains that even, let alone same sex marriages.

[lapucelle]

5. I fear they might have Griswold in their crosshairs.

I think Loving is safe while Thomas is on the Court. This conservative majority is nothing if not entitled and self-interested.

[lindysalsagal]

6. I'm sure he'd love to keep women from voting if he could.

[frazzled]

7. People who "oppose homosexuality"

whatever that means, don't have to marry someone of the same sex (nor to they have to become homosexual or consort with or befriend homosexuals). They do have to rent to them, or sell bakery items to them, just as they would to any citizen. This is about the RIGHTS of people, not about other people's OPINIONS or VIEWPOINTS.

And if they get labeled bigots, well, that's kinda true, no? After all, they are labeling "homosexuals" as less-than. Everybody can have their opinion. Nobody should deny a person a right.

[dpibel]

8. Bigots just hate it

when they get called bigots. It's soooo unfair!

Segregationists didn't like being called bigots either. And, as the great historian Sam Alito surely knows, a lot of them, back in the Civil Rights era, based their bigotry on their reading of the Bible.

[RicROC]

9. those with "traditional religious views" would be "'labeled as bigots and treated as such' by the government."

If they just had their opinion, no one would care (except I would still care and ignore them)

But if they legislate against those with 'untraditional views', then they should be labeled
as bigots, i.e. anti-freedom, anti-liberty, anti-Constitution,
so therefore should be treated as such by the government,

[love_katz]

10. The problem is that they want their bigotry enshrined in law.

And they want to enact their bigotry without consequences. No one can legislate what they have to think or believe, nor go after them for what they say in private. This is about the bigots desire to deny basic civil rights to anyone they don't like. I don't understand why their a$$wipe arguments aren't thrown out but the anti-establishment clause. They don't have the right to force the rest of society to goose step to their particular poisonous religion.