Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(147,275 posts)
6. Alito isn't done whining about the unpopularity of anti-LGBTQ+ views
Fri Feb 23, 2024, 01:46 PM
Feb 2024

The problem isn't just that Justice Alito whined about how unpopular anti-LGBTQ+ views are. He also keeps whining about their unpopularity.


It was hardly the most high-profile case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, but Missouri Department of Corrections v. Jean Finney ended up serving as an unexpected vehicle for one justice’s political commentary. As my MSNBC colleague Jordan Rubin explained:

[The case involved] Jean Finney, a lesbian who sued her employer under state law barring sex discrimination. At trial, her lawyer asked prospective jurors whether they thought that homosexuals shouldn’t have the same rights as everyone else. Potential jurors were dismissed when they cited a religious belief that homosexuality is a sin.

This seemed pretty straightforward. Finney’s lawyer understandably believed that those who had a problem with same-sex relationships would necessarily be skeptical of the plaintiff’s case. Lawyers for the Missouri Department of Corrections objected, saying this amounted to discrimination against those who appeared likely to discriminate.....

But while that effectively brought the matter to a close, Justice Samuel Alito took the opportunity to complain for a while. In a five-page statement, the unabashed conservative agreed with the legal outcome on procedural grounds, but Alito felt compelled to add some additional commentary of his own.

As far as the justice was concerned, it was problematic that jurors were excluded based on their “traditional religious views on questions of sexual morality.”

Alito added, “That holding exemplifies the danger that I anticipated in Obergefell v. Hodges, namely 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.”

Obergefell, of course, was the landmark 2015 ruling that brought marriage equality to the United States. Alito was among the four dissenters in the case — and he’s apparently still worked up about it......

“You can’t say that marriage is a union between one man and one woman” anymore, Alito whined, as if he were a social conservative candidate appealing for votes. “Until very recently, that’s what the vast majority of Americans thought. Now it’s considered bigotry.”
Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»Alito's cries of religiou...»Reply #6