First, let me say Elie Mystal is right:Republican John Cornyn complains that the Court's Obergefell decision conflicts with the sincere beliefs of some religious people. Judge Jackson: "That is the nature of a right."
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) March 22, 2022
The argument that Cornyn is making here is THE SAME ONE conservatives used to make against interracial marriage. It's copy pasta from those days. People like Cornyn didn't like it then and don't like it now.
— Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) March 22, 2022
SDP is a matter of precedent, you see. As Mr. Mystal says, unravel that, you unravel pretty much the entire legal framework we call know and count on. Be careful what you wish for.See.. and Jackson says that SCOTUS justices are bound by precedent but then Cornyn DISAGREES and says "Thank God" Plessy was overturned.
— Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) March 22, 2022
So... which IS IT @JohnCornyn, do you want SCOTUS justices BOUND or NOT???
Cornyn is bringing Obergefell back to Hobby Lobby, which effectively (not a legal/law review analysis, mind you) said the "sincere beliefs of some religious people" can trump other rights. Or, to put it more plainly, all religious beliefs are equal under the law, but some religious beliefs are more equal than others.
Which I still contend IS the holding of Hobby Lobby. It's a bad holding.
Judge Jackson is right: it is the nature of a legally recognized right to conflict with the sincere beliefs of some religious people. It is not the place of the law (English common law, statutory law, constitutional law, what have you) to determine the authority of sincere religious beliefs. I don't think the beliefs of the owners of Hobby Lobby have any authority over my sincere religious beliefs, which are not theirs. If I was an employee of Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court says the owners' sincere religious beliefs would override my sincere religious beliefs because their First Amendment is bigger than mine, or contract law, or employment law, or something. But it is the nature of a right to apply to all people equally, and to conflict with the sincere religious beliefs of some people; such as those people who sincerely believe blacks bear the "Mark of Cain" or are children of a lesser god, or exist to serve the white people, who are God's chosen. Or that women shouldn’t get abortions because icky and/or “whores.” How "sincere" and/or "religious" it has to be is not even a close question because, well, unless we're talking about peyote usage, we don't want to draw too clear a distinction between what is a "religious belief" and what's either illegal (use of controlled substances) or just crackpot (e.g., white supremacy). Because pretty soon then we are clearly deciding your religious beliefs are crazy, and mine are sincere, and so yours don't count. Better we do that sotto voce, eh?
Like racism, it's so ugly to say it out loud.
If my sincere religious belief is that woman must be subservient to a man, can I use that as an excuse to never promote a woman above the lowest position in the company? That seems to be where we are heading. To have some fun with this, can I have a company where all the employees must be women so that a man is never subservient to a man. (Sadly I can make an argument the first would be allowed under Hobby Lobby, but not the second). I have no idea how in ten years anyone will be able to teach a coherent course on Constitutional Law.
ReplyDeleteMy apologies, poor proofreading. "Where a man is never subservient to a woman."
ReplyDelete