Scalia: Religious Schools Should Have A Special Right To Anti-Gay Discrimination

[ensho]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/09/26/328334/scalia-law-school-anti-gay/


In a speech at the historically Catholic Duquesne University School of Law, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia urged the university not to stray from a religious identity hostile to gay and lesbian students:

“Our educational establishment these days, while so tolerant of and even insistent upon diversity in all other aspects of life seems bent on eliminating diversity of moral judgment — particularly moral judgment based on religious views,” Scalia said.

-snip-

Scalia’s suggestion that there is something quintessentially Catholic about being anti-gay — a view that millions of American Catholics would no doubt find deeply offensive — is more than a little bizarre. The reality is that Catholics tend to be more supportive of gay rights than other Christian sects.
-snip-
-------------------------

he so does NOT belong on the Supreme Court. he is religiously insane, among other shortcomings.

[Jkid]

1. Here's what he's actually saying

Religious Schools Should Have A Special Right To Homophobic Bullying of those perceived to be Gay.

Because conservative religious groups are privileged in this country by the wealthy.

[MADem]

2. Well, they do--so long as they don't take any of that nasty, pro-gay government MONEY.

You take taxpayer cash, you play by taxpayer rules.

These schools need to get the hell over it.

...Moreover, his insistence that religious institutions enjoy a special right to discriminate against gay people is particularly troubling, and it has worked its way into his decisions on the Supreme Court. In Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, a conservative Christian student group claimed the special right to have a state university subsidize their organization even though it refused to comply with the university’s anti-discrimination policy. Scalia joined a four justice dissent that would have given anti-gay groups exactly this right.

Now, let’s be clear. All groups have a First Amendment protected right to build institutions and use those institutions to spread their viewpoint. Indeed, if an institution — whether religious or otherwise — wants to outright engage in hate speech, than that is their right under the First Amendment. But Scalia is advocating something entirely different here. He believes that anti-gay groups can demand that society as a whole support their alternative lifestyle, and he also seems to believe that religious schools have a special right to force their way into organizations that find anti-gay discrimination repugnant.

In other words, Scalia needs to understand that the First Amendment is fine with anti-gay speech — anti-gay groups just have no right to flamboyantly demand that the rest of us subsidize their behavior.

[jwirr]

4. And this is the point. If he is allowed to say that they have a right to

discriminate they are going to be able to have their cake and eat it too. By making it a religious right guaranteed by the government then they can still have their subsidies from the government.

[MADem]

8. That's just HIS opinion. It's not a majority view of the Supreme Court, however,

if people keep shitting on Obama, touting third party candidates, and making life tough for our team, his lousy opinion could become the law of the land when a GOP president gets elected because of all the carping and gets to pick that fifth Supreme who will agree with that sleazy nitwit!

This crazed rambling of Fat Tony illustrates quite clearly why there IS a difference between a Democratic President and a GOP one. Obama won't pick a Supreme who thinks like Fat Tony.

[jwirr]

9. I whole heartedly agree. The SCOTUS is probably the most important

issue we have this election but no one seems to see it. Jobs yes. But if we totally lose that court we are sunk for the next 30 years or more.

[Initech]

3. Can we impeach him yet?

[Bandit]

5. If I used my "Moral Judgment on Religious Views" I would discriminate

against Religions.. You are a Christian, sorry you can't use my services....:shrug: what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

[louslobbs]

6. Scalia the person, is a bully , so for him to feel this way is logical, but this

is no way for an allegedly "impartial" Supreme Court Judge to think or speak. He believes that kids who are gay can and should be bullied by those who claim to have certain religious beliefs.......there are several judges sitting on that rigged court who should never have been seated in the first place and need to somehow be removed. I agree, he is indeed insane, but what do we do when there are insane and criminal Supreme Court lifetime appointees? This is why I think most of them feel free to cheat, lie, hang out with the Koch brothers and say almost anything they want, it comes down to that old question: "So, what are you going to do about it?" Absolute power does corrupt absolutely...........and absolute power + insanity = trouble for the rest of us. I believe that it should be easier to remove the corrupt judges from their positions, but for those who sit on the court impartially and honestly, in order to keep them honest, that they should be investigated on a yearly basis and questioned about their connections and potential conflicts of interest to see if they are still fit to remain on the court. The old "lifetime appointment" BS no longer functions properly without some checks and balances on this Highest of Courts. They cannot just be trusted to do the right thing anymore, maybe they never could, after all, they are just people like you and me. Imagine what you might think you could get away with if you had a lifetime appointment to a job where it was almost impossible to get rid of you or people were afraid to even make the attempt to get rid of you. Something needs to change about the appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court, how they might be re-vetted from time to time, and its got to be done fast.

Lou

[dash_bannon]

7. Would Scalia condone slavery?

Leviticus 20:13 advocates stoning gay men to death.

Leviticus 20:13 NIV :
“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.'"

The Old Testament also has no problem with the ownership of slaves. (In fact, the New Testament doesn't come out against slavery, either.)

So, if Scalia is pro-discrimination against gays, I wonder if he'd also be pro-slavery? Perhaps there's a logical fallacy on my part, but if Scalia's "morals" are dependent on the Bible, then we have to wonder what he finds moral.

After all, the Bible is anti-gay, and also pro-slavery, so Scalia must find both things to be just and moral.

I prefer 21st Century morality to Justice Scalia's Bronze Age morality. I would wager most modern Christians would be anti-slavery, and gay tolerant in our modern times. Scalia on the other hand, might just love himself a good old fashioned witch burning. Just sayin'.

If there's any reason to vote for Obama in 2012, it's so that the Republicans don't get access to replacing 2-3 Supreme Court judges during the 2012-2016 presidency.

[applegrove]

10. Scalia is a sicko. I'm sure he loves the idea of a certain will being imposed upon a child, a child

trying to be him/herself. That is child abuse.