CT Blue

I’m sort of beating a dead horse here, but I like to think the horse was a Republican.

A short while ago I asked how Clarence and his pals would explain why it’s okay for someone to refuse service to a gay couple but not an interracial one.

Now we learn that the same folks that brought us the right to discriminate against gays decision are pushing it even further. A Texas justice of the peace is claiming she can refuse to marry gay couples because of her “sincerely held religious beliefs”. She will undoubtedly win her case, if not in the state courts, then in the federal when she files suit in the court where that crackpot Trumper sits.

The correct legal decision in this case is a no-brainer. If you put yourself forward to hold a public office, then you commit yourself to following the law that relates to that office. If your religion forbids you to perform your duties, then don’t assume the office. A policeman, for instance, can’t refuse to arrest a criminal out of a sincere religious belief that the act should not be a crime. Or I guess I should say, that it has always been the case that a policeman must enforce the laws as written, but we are, after all, entering a new legal era.

There is a distinction between the justice of the peace case and the one the court just decided, in that in the new case you are talking about a state actor. That should make all the difference, but I suspect it won’t. We are well on the way to the establishment of a state religion in which the “sincere religious beliefs” of those with whom the Supreme Court right wing justices agree trump (small “t” but maybe I should capitalize it) all else.

Again, we must look forward to see whether Clarence will attempt to explain how this doesn’t apply to his marriage or he will remain silent. I predict silence, but the issue will ultimately come up. I can’t wait. On a related note, I often wonder how a certain local Republican squares the legalization of discrimination against gay people with his own sexual orientation. Just wondering!

Another thing: Yes, it’s illegal to engage in affirmative action if you are looking to recruit black students, though affirmative action for legacies, children of large donors, and athletes is perfectly okay. But what if the school in question engages in affirmative action out of a sincere religious belief that it is a moral imperative? Shouldn’t that make it okay? My guess is that anyone who tried that one would utlimately be mystified by the fact that the court would refuse to defer to their sincere religious beliefs.