Supreme Court turns blind eye as lower court forces Christian to issue gay ‘marriage’ licenses
The U.S. Supreme Court has officially become post-modern. Not
only did it redefine marriage this summer, but Justice Kennedy's majority
opinion implied that religious liberty only applies to advocacy -- not the
practice of religion in private and public.
Now, the Court has made it clear that some religions deserve
more liberty than others. Yesterday, it
denied a stay of a lower court's decision ordering a Christian clerk to violate her
conscience by handing out marriage licenses for relationships that aren't
marriage:
The U.S. Supreme Court has denied
Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis' request for a stay in a judge's ruling, which
orders her to issue marriage licenses.
Davis will have to choose whether to issue marriage
licenses Tuesday, defying her Christian conviction, or continue defying a
federal judge who could fine her or send her to jail.
So, according to the Supreme Court, people can advocate for
their beliefs -- but they can't practice them. Unless
you're Muslim, I guess. From early June:
The Supreme Court on Monday revived an employment discrimination lawsuit
against Abercrombie & Fitch, which had refused to hire a Muslim woman
because she wore a head scarf. The company said the scarf clashed with its
dress code, which called for a “classic East Coast collegiate style.”
“This is really easy,” Justice
Antonin Scalia said in announcing the decision from the bench.
The company, he said, at least
suspected that the applicant, Samantha Elauf, wore the head scarf for religious
reasons. The company’s decision not to hire her, Justice Scalia said, was
motivated by a desire to avoid accommodating her religious practice. That was
enough, he concluded, to allow her to sue under a federal employment
discrimination law.
The vote was 8 to 1, with Justice Clarence Thomas
dissenting.
Some argue that Davis' Christian beliefs don't matter; she is a
public employee, and if she doesn't like the law, she can go work in the
private sector. I agree. But then why is the Court requiring that a private company uphold what Thomas
noted was a neutral policy for all employees -- and, therefore,
not intended to be discriminatory against religious beliefs or their practice?
The cognitive dissonance is astounding.
