WASHINGTON − Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito attempted an “I told you so” on Tuesday when he criticized a judge’s dismissal of potential jurors in a workplace discrimination case because they believed homosexuality is a sin.
Alito said that’s exactly the type of outcome he warned against when, against his objections, the Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage.
Alito said he’d anticipated that Americans would be labeled as bigots unless they hid their traditional religious beliefs about “homosexual conduct.”
The court had made clear the gay marriage decision should not be used in that way, Alito said, “but I am afraid this admonition is not being heeded by our society.”
Alito was writing about the Supreme Court’s rejection of an appeal of a workplace bias lawsuit against the Missouri Department of Corrections by an employee, Jean Finney, who is a lesbian.
While Alito agreed with his colleagues that the appeal should be rejected because of other factors, he criticized the trial judge’s decision to reject some jurors for their religious beliefs.
“When a court, a quintessential state actor, finds that a person is ineligible to serve on a jury because of his or her religious beliefs, that decision implicates fundamental rights,” he wrote.
The Missouri Court of Appeals said the questions asked of jurors appropriately focused on whether they had strong feelings about homosexuality because Finney’s sexual orientation was at the heart of her claim that she’d been harassed and mistreated.
Other prospective jurors who identified as religious or Christian but did not express strong views on homosexuality were not eliminated.
The Missouri Department of Corrections did not raise objections during the trial to dismissing the potential jurors so could not do so later, the appeals court said.
That’s also the reason Alito said he “reluctantly” agreed that the correction department’s appeal should be denied.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Still, thirteen states had urged the high court to take the case to protect jurors “from religious discrimination in the jury box.”
The religious rights group Alliance Defending Freedom which has filed several successful religious appeals at the Supreme Court in recent years, had also asked the Supreme Court to weigh in.
In the majority opinion on same-sex marriage authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2015, he emphasized that “religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.”
“The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered,” Kennedy wrote.
But in his dissent – one of four written by justices – Alito express skepticism that would be allowed to happen.
“We will soon see whether this proves to be true,” he wrote. “I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”
Article Link
Archive
Alito said that’s exactly the type of outcome he warned against when, against his objections, the Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage.
Alito said he’d anticipated that Americans would be labeled as bigots unless they hid their traditional religious beliefs about “homosexual conduct.”
The court had made clear the gay marriage decision should not be used in that way, Alito said, “but I am afraid this admonition is not being heeded by our society.”
Alito was writing about the Supreme Court’s rejection of an appeal of a workplace bias lawsuit against the Missouri Department of Corrections by an employee, Jean Finney, who is a lesbian.
While Alito agreed with his colleagues that the appeal should be rejected because of other factors, he criticized the trial judge’s decision to reject some jurors for their religious beliefs.
“When a court, a quintessential state actor, finds that a person is ineligible to serve on a jury because of his or her religious beliefs, that decision implicates fundamental rights,” he wrote.
The Missouri Court of Appeals said the questions asked of jurors appropriately focused on whether they had strong feelings about homosexuality because Finney’s sexual orientation was at the heart of her claim that she’d been harassed and mistreated.
Other prospective jurors who identified as religious or Christian but did not express strong views on homosexuality were not eliminated.
The Missouri Department of Corrections did not raise objections during the trial to dismissing the potential jurors so could not do so later, the appeals court said.
That’s also the reason Alito said he “reluctantly” agreed that the correction department’s appeal should be denied.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Still, thirteen states had urged the high court to take the case to protect jurors “from religious discrimination in the jury box.”
The religious rights group Alliance Defending Freedom which has filed several successful religious appeals at the Supreme Court in recent years, had also asked the Supreme Court to weigh in.
In the majority opinion on same-sex marriage authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2015, he emphasized that “religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.”
“The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered,” Kennedy wrote.
But in his dissent – one of four written by justices – Alito express skepticism that would be allowed to happen.
“We will soon see whether this proves to be true,” he wrote. “I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”
Article Link
Archive
