Today is a day where you really start to question why nine unelected individuals get to make decisions that will affect you for the rest of your life, isn’t it? Especially when the document that allows them to do so is almost 250 years old! That makes no sense! Isn’t great that a bunch of dead white guys from a time before Diet Coke, indoor plumbing, abolition, and women’s suffrage get to make decisions that affect us? Everything is terrible up to and now including the fact that discrimination based on sexuality is now a federally protected right.
The Supreme Court ruled Friday in 303 Creative v. Elenis, deciding that some businesses can discriminate on the grounds of someone’s sexuality thanks to the First Amendment. If that doesn’t make sense to you, it’s because you’re not a whiny conservative hiding their bigotry behind their religion who loves hate more than anything else. However, there is a slight silver lining here. Per GLAD.org:
In a 6-3 ruling today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a highly fact-specific decision authorizing a narrow exception to a state nondiscrimination law for a website developer whose work it found involves selecting customers to convey the designer’s message. While the case allows for the first time a limited First Amendment exemption from laws requiring businesses open to the public to offer the goods and services they sell without discrimination, the unusual nature of the transaction in the case suggests the ruling has virtually no application to the overwhelming majority of businesses providing goods and services to the public.
It’s all bulls*it, but according to GLAD (which submitted a friend of the court briefing against the web designer who is now allowed to discriminate), at least the window in which you can freely discriminate is a narrow one. Cold comfort. You won’t be surprised to learn that only the Justices considered liberal (Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor) voted against the decision. That’s because they’re actually qualified for their job, and don’t have Republican billionaire sugar daddies buying them things.
These three justices are holding down the fort for sanity. Unfortunately, they are outnumbered. However, that doesn’t mean that can’t issue scathing dissents that incriminate the very body they serve on. Take, for instance, Justice Sotomayor’s dissent against the 303 Creative ruling:
Here is the transcript via the Supreme Court website:
“What a difference five years makes.” […] And not just at the Court. Around the country, there has been a backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities. New forms of inclusion have been met with reactionary exclusion. This is heartbreaking. Sadly, it is also familiar. When the civil rights and women’s rights movements sought equality in public life, some public establishments refused. Some even claimed, based on sincere religious beliefs, constitutional rights to discriminate. The brave Justices who once sat on this Court decisively rejected those claims.
Your eyes do not deceive you; Justice Sotomayor is damning the Supreme Court itself for being less than it once was, and as a result, calls out the three conservative Justices Donald Trump was able to support: Neil Gorsuch (who is sitting in Merrick Garland‘s rightful spot), Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh. They truly are lesser people than the court that legalized gay marriage at the federal level eight years ago.
The rulings today, just like the rulings last year, are a direct result of the 2016 Presidential election. Remember this next year. Clarence Thomas is 75 years old. Samuel Alito is 73. They (thankfully) can’t live forever, and when they finally decide to leave the position, fingers crossed it’s a Democrat is in the White House.
(featured image: Alex Wong/Getty Images)
