Yesterday The Supreme Court Jolted LGBTQ People With A Frightening Reality




 

Inside the U.S. Supreme Court this week for the oral arguments for Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, I couldn't help but look at Justice Neil Gorsuch and imagine how things would be if Merrick Garland were rightly sitting in that chair.

Had Republicans not stolen that seat, refusing a vote on President Obama's nominee for almost the entirety of his last year in office and allowing Donald Trump to put Neil Gorsuch ― an ideologue on the issue of "religious freedom" ― on the court, we would not be in this dangerous predicament.

That is, we'd not be once again worried about a wavering Justice Anthony Kennedy, this time about the issue of whether or not a business open to the public can bar service to gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people based on the business owners' religious beliefs.

It was stunning to many people that the Supreme Court even took up the case of Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, who refused, on religious grounds ― claiming a violation of First Amendment rights ― to make a cake for a gay couple, Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig, who came in to buy a wedding cake. Other similar cases in states with laws barring discrimination against LGBT people in public accommodations had been rejected for review by the high court after lower courts ruled against the businesses.

But there we were, with Gorsuch on the court and with Justice John Roberts seeming to be squarely with Gorsuch and the conservatives. This, even though some legal scholars, looking at his prior decisions, noted Roberts has been open to regulating speech when it comes to civil rights law. But that didn't seem to be the case yesterday from his questioning. And Kennedy, as many have pointed out, appeared to express sympathy ― and harshness ― for both sides.

Justice Kennedy has been the court's leader on gay equality, writing the decisions in landmark cases striking down sodomy laws, ruling the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, and of course the Obergfell marriage equality ruling in 2015.

David Cole, of the American Civil Liberties Union, who represented the gay couples and was peppered with hard questions about religious liberty from the conservative justices, told me after the proceedings that he thought the arguments largely went well.

Well, that's how it goes in the Supreme Court, you're peppered with questions," he said of the conservatives justices who pressed him. "But I think the [plaintiffs] made clear that the argument the bakery was advancing ― that the United States was advancing [via Donald Trump's solicitor general] ― that businesses that have services that could be characterized as expressive get an exemption from anti-discrimination law, was untenable."

But many progressive legal observers are concerned ― some very much so ― and the general consensus among journalists who cover legal issues is that it will come down to Kennedy, and that he, by his own history, could be sympathetic to the baker. It's often forgotten that on another gay rights decision, Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, Kennedy joined the majority in a 2000 ruling that the Boy Scouts could ban gay scouts and scoutmasters on First Amendment grounds.

But no one knows what's going to happen in this case. Deciphering opinions from the justices' questions is like reading tea leaves, especially when one or more are equally hard on and sympathetic to both sides. Some of the conservatives may find that even if they want to favor the baker, they can't do so without opening the door to discrimination against many other groups. Or they'll find a way. We'll know in a few months.

But again, the fact that we are even here is precarious. In my 2015 book, It's Not Over, I wrote all about what I'd termed "victory blindness," a phenomenon in which minorities who are discriminated against become seduced by big wins ― like the Obergefell ruling ― and think they've achieved full equality in society. Victory blindness, I argued, overcame many LGBTQ people, who let their guards down or dismissed some anti-LGBTQ actions, not realizing that the anti-equality forces were organizing fiercely, and that the backlash would be intense and could roll back LGBTQ rights while we're celebrating or not paying attention.

My argument was filled with a lot of "what ifs" that many of us ― including me ― thought were unlikely to happen. Yes, we'd achieved much under President Obama and it would likely continue, but what if an extremist GOP candidate was elected president? What if the make up of the Supreme Court changed and we didn't get replacements that were sympathetic to LGBTQ rights? (That happened with regard to Scalia, and it could easily happen with Kennedy, who may retire at any time, and which would mark a devastating shift for the court.)

Victory blindness often prevents us from seeing how tenuous our wins are and how all minorities must continue to fight for their rights because the political winds can shift very quickly.

Donald Trump's election and presidency did a lot to shake us from it, forcing us to become energized and to vow to fight. This week at the Supreme Court, no matter how the case eventually is decided, should serve to do the same.

COMMENTS

More Related News

Chelsea Clinton: Trump Degrades 'What It Means To Be An American'
Chelsea Clinton: Trump Degrades 'What It Means To Be An American'

Chelsea Clinton skewered President Donald Trump's character in a recent

North and South Korean leaders hold surprise 2nd summit
North and South Korean leaders hold surprise 2nd summit

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in met for the second time in a month on Saturday, holding a surprise summit at a border truce village to discuss Kim's potential meeting with President Donald Trump, Moon's office said. Kim and Moon met hours after South Korea

Trump takes steps to ease firing of federal workers
Trump takes steps to ease firing of federal workers

President Donald Trump on Friday signed a trio of executive orders to overhaul the federal bureaucracy by making it easier to fire federal workers for poor performance and misconduct, requiring that departments and agencies negotiate better union contracts and limiting the amount of time certain federal

'Not animals': Guatemala family mourns niece killed by U.S. Border Patrol
  • US
  • 2018-05-26 01:43:07Z

By Sofia Menchu GUATEMALA CITY (Reuters) - The family of a 19-year-old Guatemalan woman killed by a U.S. border patrol officer called on Friday for the United States to dial-back its rhetoric on migrants, after President Donald Trump described gang members entering the country as "animals." The woman, identified by her family as Claudia Gomez, was shot on Wednesday in south Texas by an officer who opened fire after several people "rushed him," the Border Patrol said in a statement on Friday. The agency, alternately describing them as "illegal aliens" and "a group of suspected illegal aliens," said Gomez was among them.

Source: Trump administration has cut deal with China
Source: Trump administration has cut deal with China's ZTE

The Trump administration has told Congress that it's reached a deal that would allow Chinese telecommunications giant ZTE Corp. to stay in business, a source familiar with the talks who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a confidential matter said Friday. A resolution of the ZTE case could

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Cancel reply

Comments

Top News: Latin America

facebook
Hit "Like"
Don't miss any important news
Thanks, you don't need to show me this anymore.