https://www.politico.com/.../scotus-lgbtq-gay-rights...Colorado is once again the test case on whether a private company serving the public can discriminate and refuse service based on a religious belief that disapproves of LGBTQ people. Our state has been in this situation before regarding a cake maker who got success from this theocratic-inclined Supreme Court's religious conservatives. Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case | CNN Politics This recent case brought by a business who wants to deny a printing service to LGBTQs is different because it challenges a Colorado anti-gay discrimination law. Thd plaintiff's contention is that she is an artist offering e commerce printing and her artistic freedoms are being infringed. It is an issue that is a thorny one with consequences reaching far beyond anti-gay bigotry to the rights of anti-non evangelically subscribed persons. We saw it in the majority of the newly comprised evangelical majority court overturning Roe v Wade. Will this lead to any more successful attempts to approve discrimination against those evangelicals who disapprove on theological grounds? Targets could include Muslims, Jews, atheists, and, in the case of evangelicals, also promoting white nationalism, black or brown people? The precedent of another court decision supporting the right for private businesses serving the public to discriminate against fellow citizens based upon religious beliefs will have unintended consequences, losses in their adherent candidates in elections as happened in 2022, Congress passing legislation (as it did in upholding gay and interracial marriages as a federal right), and it will give impetus to the attempts to enlarge a Supreme Court that is seen out of step with 60 to 70% of the American views on specific public policy issues, such as a women's right to choose and marriage equality. Court decisions appear to be made that are not based on the interpretation of the rule of law but on the religious beliefs and biases of the majority of the Justices. What becomes clear is that the separation of church and state and the Constitution forbids the establishment of a state religion. This principle established in the first amendment comes into conflict with an attempt by evangelicals to use the government to force others to adhere to their most ultra-conservative religious beliefs. They even support the use of police forces and the application of law to treat non-conformers as criminals (as is embedded in many anti-roe v wade extreme laws in many states the Supreme Court decision just enabled).
I have no problem with faith leaders extolling their beliefs or with their followers or converting others to adhere to their belief systems in their personal actions. However, forcing others who are in the majority and holding a differing opinion to comply by using governmental and political powers is not supporting American democracy but supporting a theocracy. I laud the action of the Mormon Church to recognize the principle that they do not approve of same-sex marriage as a religious doctrine, but they acknowledge that others have a right to believe and act otherwise in civil life.
Mormon church voices support for same-sex marriage law | AP NewsThat is preserving the freedom of religion and civil rights, both. It also shows the confidence of a religious institution in its ability to succeed without having laws and police to act of morality police spread compliance with faith on its behalf. I had an interesting e exchange with a close friend from another country regarding the civil rights of minorities. She is from a country in Europe where 90 percent of the population subscribes to Catholicism or some form of Christianity, and racial minorities are less than 10% of the population. Many countries in Europe and especially in the Balkans, have had bloody wars to eliminate ethnic a religious minorities with whom they disagree. Those political forces at work are rooted in centuries past. In that case, should the civil rights of those minorities be protected, and should the majority have the responsibility to do so? These countries do not have a multi-cultural, multi-religious population or a secular-based constitution like the US. For the sake of civil peace, the value of honoring civil and human rights should be above and beyond ethical and ideological reasons. Until now, human rights have been the principle that the US has led the world by providing an example of attempting to become a more perfect union. Until now, that has raised the issue of human rights as a worthy value around the world. Whether we continue despite the standard of supporting improving civil and human rights in our country in spite of our failures and victories is
under attack from evangelical theocrats. Protection of a minority's civil rights should not mean the minority has police and legal power in government to suppress others' civil and human rights, but that religious minorities and majorities have the same rights to peacefully protest freedom to preach, speak, convert, and organize.
The irony or the intention of these LGBTQ rights attacks is that Colorado is the hotbed of these challenges to whether religious adherents can discriminate against those they disapprove in their private business because of religious reasons.
Colorado has been at the forefront of acceptance of LGBTQ rights. Our governor, who just won a landslide re-election, is the only openly gay governor in the US. In addition, he is married and a parent in a same-sex marriage which is not only recognized as a protected right in Colorado but now, due to recent Congressional action, will have federal legal standing.
Update 12//7/22
The gay haters are getting organized in Colorado to bring their intolerance to Colorado public schools. School board members, be warned and ready. Colorado is not fertile ground, unlike southern states. Voters here have your backs.
