Samuel Alito Is Mad You Can’t Be Bigoted Toward Gay People Anymore
The Supreme Court justice is back to complaining about LGBTQ people in a recent opinion from the court.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is complaining that people who oppose homosexuality were being unfairly branded as bigots, despite that being a dictionary definition of bigotry.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a case about whether it is legal to exclude potential jurors based on their religion. The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Jean Finney, who is lesbian, against her longtime employer, the Missouri Department of Corrections, for workplace discrimination and retaliation due to her sexuality. During jury selection for the trial, which Finney won, her lawyer asked the judge to remove three jurors who had expressed beliefs that homosexuality is a sin. Finney’s lawyer argued their religious beliefs would bias them against LGBTQ people.
The state of Missouri appealed the decision, arguing that the jury selection process had been discriminatory on religious grounds. An appeals court sided with Finney, ruling the jurors had been eliminated due to their beliefs about homosexuality, not because they were Christians. Missouri appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, which declined Tuesday to hear the case.
In a statement, Alito said he agreed with the decision not to hear the lawsuit, but warned he felt the case was a harbinger of greater danger.
The appeals court ruling “exemplifies the danger that I anticipated in Obergefell v. Hodges,” Alitio wrote, referring to the landmark 2015 Supreme Court ruling that legalized marriage equality.
“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,” he said. “The opinion of the Court in that case made it clear that the decision should not be used in that way, but I am afraid this admonition is not being heeded by our society.”
Somehow I doubt Alito would have any qualms about striking atheist jurors from a case involving a Christian pastor.
Hey, Justice dumbass:
Change "homosexual" to "Catholic," and I bet you can see the problem really fuckin' quickly.
Or "Italian."
Not very long ago, there wouldn't be a Supreme Court justice with the surname 'Alito.'
Sure but he obviously doesn't care. There's no attempt to be even handed here, he just wants to hurt LGBT people however he can.
I like the Christian mental gymnastics where someone in drag is a massive social issue, but they give 10% of their paychecks to men that wear a dress on stage that have actually been molesting kids for 2000 years.
Yes but they changed the bible. They removed pedophile rape as a sin and put homosexuality in its place. So child rape is okay now. Checkmate atheists.
Or just read the new testament…
You know, I will give the total douches that marched in Charlottesville one thing- they didn't even try to hide who they were. They marched without masks, yelling racist and bigoted things and didn't expect anyone to consider them anything other than racists and bigots.
And then on the other side you have Alito and so many other bigot Republicans who are happy to be bigots but indignant that they get labeled bigots.
Own your bigotry you cowards.
The thing is, he's also totally incorrect. They aren't labeled as bigots because they're Christian. They're labeled as bigots because they're homophobic. There's Christians who have no issue at all with gay people. You can't say deeply religious people are being labeled as bigots when there's also deeply religious people who have no issue with it.
I'd love for Alito to argue "okay but if they don't hate gays they aren't real Christians" because it opens a can of worms I'd love to finally open. If someone doesn't count as religious because they aren't a real Christian, a whole lot of religious exceptions disappear.
You're right, but he doesn't care about any of that. He doesn't care that some christians are cool with gay people and others aren't. He thinks that all christians have a constitutionally protected right to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people, and that any governmental action that prevents that discrimination is infringing on a christian's religious freedom.
This is, of course, based on his personal feelings as a Catholic fundamentalist. I wonder if he'd extend the same religious freedoms to somebody who believes their God wants them to discriminate against old white men
The case was not about gay marriage, it was discrimination of a protected class. The court said it's fair to dismiss jurors who believe the identity of the protected class is a bad thing. Like dismissing misogynists from a sex discrimination case. Even if they came to their misogyny via religion, it gives them a bias in this case.
Being dismissed for bias doesn't mean they are bad people, either. The defendant's brother couldn't be on the jury because of bias, that doesn't make him a bad person.
Luckily this nonsense is the minority view on the court even in a 6-3 world, since his was a minority dissent.
In general, I agree it doesn't. But in this case, it does.
Correlation doesn’t imply causation. Both statements that they were dismissed for bias and that they’re bad people are true, but only because they’re linked to the separate true statement of the fact that they’re bigots
I've lost count of how many reasons there are that show Alito shouldn't be a judge of any sort but this another example.
Man, if he's bothered by being called a bigot, he's gonna really hate it when he finds out what else people call him.
I feel like his comment is just setting the stage for overturning Obergefell v. Hodges. We already know that they want it overturned so this is just groundwork for the day when that happens.
I think there's already a federal law enshrining gay marriage, so we're fortunate there at least.
It wouldn't surprise me if they tried to say that law was unconstitutional, but the backlash from doing so would make the backlash from abortion look like a wave in a kiddie pool.
I assume the argument for it being unconstitutional is because it might make an old white man not get the deserved appreciation for his personal opinion in public. We can't take that away from them. \s
Hey I'll pretend to appreciate his personal opinion in public all he wants so long as it doesn't make it into law
The sooner his evil heart gives out, the better.
You are fucking bigots, full stop. Religion ruins everything.
I'm not heeding fucking shit from an asshole who defends bigotry. If society doesn't like the tenets of his religion, the problem isn't society, it's his religion.
Calling us bigots while we engage in textbook bigotry is the real bigotry.
Bigots like Alito shouldn't be managing a McDonald's, let alone have a seat on the supreme court. When will this "I think my religion says I should be a bigot so I have a constitutionally protected right to trample over everyone else's rights" nonsense stop?
Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
Bigots like Alito would get fired from managing a McDonalds really quickly when it turns out he had a bunch of bigoted hiring and management practices. Which he would.
The minute corporate noticed all of his employees were always white men, he'd be out on his ass.
Because corporate America knows that bigotry (on the non-executive level) is not good for their bottom line. It's not even about empathy. They just know bigots lose them money.
Dear Sam,
If you believe some people should be treated as less than human, without the rights afforded to all people in this country, you are a bigot. Religion does not justify bigotry.
Please step on something pointy.
Warm regards, Tip
Man, what a whiney little bigoty bitch
Alito has always been the worst justice. He's evil and not lazy like Thomas and Bart.
Here he goes full mask off and basically says "bigots should be able to hide behind Christianity"
Anyone who believes in the same morals as Jesus should be ashamed and angered by this man calling himself Christ like in any way.
"Christian" just means you think Jesus was the Messiah. It does no lt mean the person agrees with him!
This is an incredibly important distinction.
Didn’t Sam get the news? It’s 2024, we’ve moved on as a society.
We’re horrible to trans people now instead.
You could tell back in 2022 that Trollito was one very angry man.
He's always been that way but for some reason he's started to speak openly about it. This is not normal for a SCOTUS justice, they usually keep their opinions to themselves.
He is part of an unbreakable majority and he knows it. He doesn't care about keeping up appearances because there is literally zero incentive to care.
Unbreakable is disputed by 40,000 different christian belief systems in the U.S. alone. Throw in that not all christians are homophobic and that shrinks.
Ask him if a christian saying all catholics go to hell, and if that person would be considered an unbias jury member trying a catholic and we might get a different answer.
Yep. In true conservative fashion it doesn't hurt until it hurts THEM.
After Scalia died he wanted to cast off the "Scalito" moniker and decided to be more visible. Only problem is that he's just a natural born asshole. Plus conservatives have a super majority on the court and are basically untouchable and that inevitably leads to arrogance.
He definitely has that "I'm rich and entitled but it's not enough so I'm going to be a dick" energy.
Constitutional rights, as Alito must surely know, come into conflict all the time, and it is the courts' responsibility to balance one right against another.
Yes, you have a right to your religion and its beliefs, but that right must yield when it infringes on other people's rights. None of this amounts to the courts "labeling someone as a bigot and treating them as such." I can label those people as bigots and treat them as such, because I am not a judge, and "bigot" is not a protected class.
c/SCOTUSJusticesWithPunchableFaces
It's a shame abortion wasn't legal when Samuel Altio's mom was pregnant.
A real thing, if anyone was wondering. https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/samuel-alitos-moms-satanic-abortion-clinic
The TST are a national treasure.
holy hell! those people are a riot!! 😂
Someone else had the same idea
"Why am I called a bigot just cause I'm a bigot?! The appropriate term is 'Christian!'"
Christians are terrorists based on a faith that wouldn't have survived to this day without extensive "convert or die" campaigns combined with claiming every fucking tradition they came across as their own.
90s black metal had the right idea, if they get to discriminate we get to burn. Thems the rules.
That last paragraph is hellarious. "I'm just shocked that society isn't heeding my admonition" Is so much a supreme court justice with his head up his own ass. And to top it off his "admonition" is "please don't be mean to these people just because they want to be mean to other people".
Where is Jury Duty a guaranteed right, Sammy?
More squawking from the illegitimate court.
The Court as a whole did fine on this one, it's Justice Alito being a bigoted old wanker.
They really didn't do fine, though. The correct move was to decline to hear it (which they did) and then not express support for bigots.
Alito's vocal support of bigotry here was intended to encourage bigots to challenge Obergefell v. Hodges. He's making it clear that he would like to overturn it.
Same wanker that there was an article about yesterday? Saying he didn't like that that Bush put a policy in place to grant higher education to everyone who performed well regardless of who they were. If that was true, yes... He likely is a biggot and doesn't want to admit it.
there's a push lately to equate being christian with being a violent right-wing bigot by violent right-wing bigots who want to paint any opposition to their bigotry and violence as some sort of movement against christianity. But the thing is, I'm against violent, bigoted Muslims too. And violent, bigoted Atheists. And violent, bigoted Jews. I haven't met any violent, bigoted Jains but there's no river long enough that doesn't have a bend in it and if I ever met a violent, bigoted Jain I'd be against them too. Bigotry isn't necessary to Christianity and Christianity isn't necessary to bigotry. The question to these jurors was "Can you apply the law as-written to this case" and several people said "My religious beliefs prevent me from applying the law equally to homosexuals, who I believe are an underclass that needs to be punished."
Bet if it was a cop on trial they'd have no problem kicking someone off the jury for their ACAB tattoo, or if they were Mennonites who believe that violence is wrong in all cases.
Too bad for you Samuel.
Is that what he said? He said “I’m mad you can’t be bigoted at gay people anymore”?
It's AGAINST the Constitution to be Gay!
Well, here is the dictionary definition of bigotry.
It fits both Alito and anyone who dislikes his views. I wasn't aware the definition was so broad but it basically applies to everyone who dislikes anyone else's view on anything.
I know that Alito doesn't ever do anything in good faith, but I can see how his argument has validity if made in good faith. I have plenty of Christian friends who absolutely support gay rights because, as a Christian, they feel that their job is to live through Christ and support their fellow Christians. They feel that homosexuality is a sin, but no more of a sin than original sin, so anyone who was ever birthed starts on a level playing field. Anything beyond that, to them, is for God to sort out.
These are the kind of people who believe that you save someone's soul by living as a good person and if someone else wants to emulate that, they can follow Christ in kind. If it takes an invisible sky-man to help these people make good choices, then sure, Christian it up, baby.
So, once again, if the argument were being made in good faith, I could see that Obergefell v Hodges, which boils down to "someone whose bigotry is based on religion is still a bigot," could be misconstrued into "religious people can be treated as bigots." It's a squares and rectangles sorta thing.
So, I think that maybe what Alito is saying is that he's afraid that labeling someone who says, "yeah, I'm a bigot cuz I'm a Christian," as a bigot could accidentally lead to "get that bigot out of here because they're Christian," and then that would lead to a new need for anti-discrimination laws. But, once again, that assumption would require giving Alito far more credit than he deserves.
Not for nothing guy but you know good and well that argument is not being made in good faith, he never makes arguments in good faith, and frankly they're not even being excluded from the jury because they're Christian but because they're exclusively anti-homosexual stance. So I feel like your entire comment was moot.
I feel that that comment adds some nuance to the discussion, so I wouldn't call it 'moot' myself.
Yes, you're right that I know good and well that he never makes arguments in good faith, that's why I said it multiple times. I'm not sure that you read the whole comment, because it wasn't about defending the indefensible. It was about ensuring that while we all deliver Alito a well-deserved "fuck you," we have to also say, "except the part about not discriminating against religion. People can read whatever book they want."
The problem is, as you already noted, the part about not discriminating against religion is specious to begin with. As we both pointed out that's a bad faith argument. It it wasn't occurring. We already have many laws protecting against that. The mere idea that we're acknowledging he has any point when he clearly doesn't legitimizes his bigoted stance.
I'm not sure that I see it that way, but I also can't argue with your concern. Do you think if a more progressive or less lying-sack-of-shit person had said something similar that it would have more validity as a caution to not overcorrect into crossing boundaries? I'm not sure if "validity" is the right word since everything Alito says it's invalidated by his malevolence.
Eta: perhaps I'm looking at this wrong and not giving people their proper benefit of the doubt. There might be more nuance than my "progressive person" question allows. Maybe a more progressive person wouldn't be saying any of this in the first place?
This is the problem. This line of reasoning is only a step or two removed from "therefore homosexuality must be stopped." It is not a far leap from one to the next, and fundigelicals do it all the time.
But the main issue that Alito has a problem with is not that the religious will be mistreated because they're Christians—he knows that's a strawman; they've been harping on Christian Persecution™ for decades, yet they remain highly influential and prosperous. No, the problem is that society is fundamentally moving on from his religion, and his particular brand of religion has chosen to die on this hill, rather than adapt with the religious progressives.
He seems to be arguing, without rational warrant, that his religion is a precondition for society, not that religion can be a component of society, and that society will crumble without the superstition he prescribes. He wants us to just assume that his religion is axiomatically true without providing evidence for his presuppositions.
The age of Christians being the dominant force in the US is ending (if we can avoid theocracy/fascism), and people like Alito are doing everything they can to hold onto that position of power.
Oh, I absolutely agree and feel people are way too involved in other people's lives. Like I said numerous times, I don't think Alito does anything in good faith, but there's still something to be learned from what comes out of his shit-filled mouth. Just like the mentally deficient people who say "Jeebus tells me you can't be gay," because they heard someone tell them it's written in a book, there are mentally deficient people who will say, "you can't serve on a court because you take advice from a book."
So, really, the right phrasing of the ruling should say "bigots can't serve on courts that will be swayed by their bigotry," but then Alito would write himself out of a job, so he's gotta frame the laws around his bigoted ass.
If someone was fired from their job because of their race, and a potential juror on the case expressed their religious belief that the "mixing of races" is a sin (was a very common religious belief many people justified on the basis of their version of Christianity, and a belief many in the country still hold unfortunately), they should be thrown off that jury and rightfully so. This is no different. And don't start with any of this "well they don't think being gay is a sin just acting on it is a sin" nonsense, would be like saying being black isn't a sin, just marrying outside your race or using the same water fountains as other races is a sin.
People who hold bigoted beliefs about their fellow Americans have no place on a jury for a case involving them, especially in a discrimination case, whether they believe their bigotry is rooted in religion or anything else.
The fact that Samuel Alito thinks they do belong on juries in cases like this says everything you need to know about him. He doesn't think gay people deserve the same rights as everyone else, and he believes religious people (specifically his version of Christianity) have a right to use the law to trample the rights of others. Furthermore, he views the denial of the ability to trample other people's rights he doesn't like as some sort of discrimination against himself, in some kind of crazy warped logic.
Please don't put words in my mouth to defend your argument, I never said anything about acting on gay desires being a sin. I said that there exists people who believe that everyone is born a sinner, which I still don't get, and that they can't judge their fellow humans for homosexuality because it's no more of a sin than being born a human.
The rest of your argument mostly parrots what I said, except at some point, you seemed to get upset and came dangerously close to saying that religious people are bigots. The point I was making was that while we need to keep in mind that Alito is a bigot, we have to also keep in mind that not all members of his book club are bigots.
Some religious people are bigots, certainly not all though. And you don't need to be religious to have a bigoted viewpoint. But bigotry is exactly my point, I was not trying to tip toe around it. Saying the belief is religious doesn't make it right, and it's still bigotry. Just as in the same way people who used religion to discriminate on the basis of race (and some still do) were bigots too.
If someone who was Christian was in a case suing because they believed they were fired for their religion, and a potential juror said they thought Christians were evil, they'd be off that jury in a second without anyone batting an eye. And I'd agree they absolutely should not be on that jury. In none of these cases should jurors who hold bigoted beliefs about the issue at hand be allowed on a jury.
Agreed. I'm glad we're both bigoted against bigots.