Supreme Court is increasingly putting Christians’ First Amendment rights ahead of others’ dignity and rights to equal protection

Supremes tearing down the Constitutionally mandated wall between church and state

Pauline Jones, University of Michigan and Andrew Murphy, University of Michigan

Supporters of web designer Lorie Smith, the owner of
303 Creative, demonstrate in front of the U.S. Supreme Court
on Dec. 5, 2022. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

When the Supreme Court ruled in 303 Creative v. Elenis in 2023 that a businessperson could not be compelled to create art that violates their religious beliefs – specifically, a wedding website for a same-sex ceremony – supporters of the decision celebrated it as a victory for freedom of religion and expression.

On the day the ruling was issued, the conservative Family Research Council called it “the latest in a trend of victories for free speech and religious liberty,” while the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression hailed “a resounding victory for freedom of expression and freedom of conscience.”

But contrary to these claims, the Supreme Court’s decision does not protect the freedoms of all Americans. Rather, it represents the culmination of a decadelong strategy by conservative Christians – known sometimes as the Christian right – to use the courts to limit the freedoms of groups of Americans of whom they disapprove. On issues where the Christian right’s First Amendment claims directly threaten the equal citizenship of sexual minorities, for example, the court left no question about which side it was on.

As experts on religion and politics globally and in the United States, we think the effectiveness of this strategy has the potential to degrade both the quality of American democracy and freedoms of religion and expression.

The First Amendment protects a cluster of core rights and freedoms: religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly and petitioning the government.

"It's right over there"

Hey, Kim Davis

UPDATE: If only there was a vaccine for stupid

Rep. Justin Price fumbles anti-vax crusade

By Will Collette

UPDATE: Rep. Justin Price has now stated that since the RI Health Department has rejected his anti-vax argument, "I intend to file legislation that will put the power back in parents' hands," when the General Assembly returns in January. That parental choice works real well in California when anti-vaxxers helped bring back measles as a major public health threat.

Also, Price has come out for stripping Planned Parenthood of funding based on the phony video circulating in right-wing circles that attempts to depict legal activity as legal and Planned Parenthood as an evil place when nearly all of its work is focused on essential women's health services. 

Once, quite recently, we had a thoughtful, intelligent state representative for the northern end of Charlestown, plus Richmond, Hopkinton and Exeter, named Larry Valencia.

Redistricting took Charlestown out of his district, but Larry remained a friend to Charlestown and a working partner to Charlestown’s state Representative, Donna Walsh.

Alas in 2014, South County voters went crazy, ousting three of the state’s best legislators and replacing them with three Tea Party whack-jobs. All three are bad, but Justin Price, the guy who beat Larry, stands out for his sheer stupidity.

Whatever most normal people are for, Justin Price is against, and he usually takes a swig from the Tea Party jug before throwing out some ultra-right cliché to justify his position.

His latest stunt is to take a leadership role in a strange little group of Rhode Island anti-vaxxers who believe their right to internet-driven delusion trumps public health.

Price wants the state Health Department to withdraw its mandate that the state’s public school seventh graders receive the HPV vaccine, a safe and effective vaccine that is actually proven to prevent a variety of cancers.

The Health Department, quite rightly, told Price “NO.”

Is your relationship with your Toro any business of the government’s?

Rep. Steve King: Same Sex Marriage Will Lead to People Marrying Lawnmowers

By Richard Zombeck

As long as the lawn mower is of legal age and is consenting....

Rep. Steve King, R-IA, probably the only sitting congressman who makes the rest of the Republican Party look somewhat sane, introduced GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee on Thursday by saying that the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling means that people can now marry lawnmowers.

As Matt Taibbi, of “Rolling Stone” tweeted:

“Iowa Rep. Steve King, introducing Huckabee, said gay marriage ruling now means ‘you can marry my lawnmower.’"

King made the comment at an Iowa campaign event for Huckabee on Thursday.

The Arc of Justice Bends Like a Rainbow

The Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling came out of a powerful struggle for LGBT rights.

By Jim Hightower

Until 2010, CBS television’s daytime lineup included As the World Turns, a long-running soap opera. Times change. Now a real-life human drama of profound importance has debuted in America: As the Generations Turn.

It’s the inspiring story of our society’s continuing struggle to evolve toward equality, dignity, and mutual respect — as well as love — for all.

The moment came on June 26, when Justice Anthony Kennedy proclaimed from the ornate chambers of the Supreme Court, “The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.”

Local Reps Justin Price and Sam Azzinaro vote against legal marriage

RI General Assembly still voting on marriage equality

By Steve Ahlquist in Rhode Island’s Future

Marriage equality has been the law in Rhode Island for two years now, and its gone nationwide due to the recent SCOTUS decision, but in the General Assembly, some legislators are continuing to vote against same-sex couples seeking to get married.

When the General Assembly abruptly ended its legislative season this year, it did so having passed 117 “Solemnization of Marriage” bills. These bills are perfunctory legislative favors done by Representatives and Senators for their constituents.

Essentially, if a couple wishes to be married, but the officiant of their dreams is not permitted to marry the couple by law, a “Solemnization of Marriage” bill allows a one-time exception.

With this bill passed, a beloved relative or family friend will now be able to conduct the wedding ceremony. Because these bills are so common, they are usually bundled together as part of a “consent calendar” which is passed with little discussion and no fanfare.

Many who voted against same-sex marriage two years ago continue that battle today and some new legislators have joined the fight by voting against solemnization of marriage bills for same-sex couples.

This means that anyone seeking these perfunctory legislative favors are now putting themselves in a position to have their marriage judged by religious conservatives. These votes served to remind 25 couples that their marriage is not worthy of the same level of respect as others.

Out of the 117 solemnization bills passed last year, six were for couples with names that are traditionally associated with the same sex. Misty and Dawn, Elizabeth and Nancy, Alicia and Laura, William and Michael, Kristin and Rebecca, and Emilie and Michelle all sought and received solemnization of marriage bills. Two other couples, Sarah and Chris and Rebeccah and Alex may or not be same-sex couples, judging from the names. 

Of course, perusing the names like this is by no means a perfect system, so I apologize if I have missed or mischaracterized anyone based solely on a heteronormative reading of their name.

Consistently voting against same-sex marriages are Representatives Samuel Azzinaro, Arthur Corvese and Robert Phillips. Reps Justin Price, Joseph Trillo, Robert Lancia and Sherry Roberts frequently vote against same-sex solemnization bills.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Sam Azzinaro is a conservative Westerly Democrat who has frequently votes for the Bishop’s priorities rather than those of his constituents. Justin Price is a TeaParty militia Republican from Richmond and the leading candidate for dumbest person in the RI House of Representatives. - WC

Heads explode

World gone mad

By Tom Tomorrow

CLICK HERE to try to understand what all the fuss is about.

Losing Their Grip

The Supreme Court’s affirmation of the right to marry and its rainbow-striped afterglow unleashed conservative tantrums.

By Emily Schwartz Greco

Rainbows illuminated the White House, the Empire State Building, and other landmarks after the Supreme Court affirmed the right to marry from sea to shining sea. As most Americans basked in this milestone’s afterglow, conservative leaders stomped their feet, disparaged the nation’s most influential court, and howled.

“I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch,” thundered Mike Huckabee. “We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.”

The former Arkansas governor wasn’t the only Republican running for president who responded to recent rulings like a tantrum-prone toddler.

Some things we celebrate

This 4th Of July, Celebrate 3 Incredible Events That Have Expanded Liberty In The U.S.

By Rika Christensen

The 4th of July is a time to celebrate what America stands for, but what we stand for is not really what conservatives think we stand for these days. They stand for more liberty, yes, but only for themselves, their rich friends and their way of thinking. They stand for oppression of minority groups and of the poor. 

Yet, just in the last two weeks, liberty has expanded quite a lot. Here are three examples of how America is actually working to become what we keep saying we are.

Thank you for this, Pope Francis

Change comes for the whole country,and even in Central Falls

This never would've happened if Chuck Moreau was still Mayor. Or Tom Lazieh.
Text and photos by Lin Collette, Progressive Charlestown contributor

Well, it’s hard to say for sure since we can neither read nor change the past. The disgraced former Mayor of Central Falls, who pled guilty to corruption charges in 2012, and one of the key factors in Central Falls declaring bankruptcy in 2011, might be in favor of having the rainbow flag fly over city hall.

But few residents really care what he thinks these days. The same is true for former Mayor Lazieh, who also “helped” the city along on its path to bankruptcy back in the 1990s, and who has tried to return to the post only to be defeated by James Diossa in 2012, and to the City Council in 2014 – again, defeated by voters presumably unwilling to make the same mistakes made in the past. 

What does matter is that three years into his administration Diossa is continuing to bring his home town into the 21st century by celebrating Central Falls' diversity across the board. And that includes recognizing the place that Central Falls' gay residents have in this city that still defiantly calls itself “the city with a bright future.”  

Triumph of the homosexual agenda

Triumph!

By Tom Tomorrow

Click here to learn the whole truth behind this nefarious plot.

Preferring gay to pray

Poll: Americans Would Rather Have A Gay President Than An Evangelical One

By Wendy Gittleson

The times really are changing, and if the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll is any indication, we’ll have a President Barney Frank long before we’ll have a President Mike Huckabee – well, maybe.

In the fascinating poll, respondents were asked whether they’d be “enthusiastic,” “comfortable with,” “have some reservations about,” or “be very comfortable with” either a gay president or an evangelical president.

A full 61 percent of respondents said they would either be enthusiastic or comfortable with a gay or lesbian president. 

Only 52 percent said they’d be enthusiastic or comfortable with an evangelical candidate.

The Bible and Same Sex Marriage

We have an “Indiana” problem

Rhode Island needs to repeal its RFRA

By Steve Ahlquist in Rhode Island’s Future

Rhode Island needs to repeal its version of the RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act). We need to do this because our state is the birthplace of religious liberty and freedom of conscience. We need to do this because it is integral to the very DNA of Rhode Island that we brook no persecution or privilege based on deeply held religious convictions.

And if these are not reasons enough, we need to do this for the economy.

When Governor Mike Pence signed Indiana’s version of the RFRA into law, opening the floodgates for potential discrimination against LGBTQ persons, public reaction was swift. 

An IndyStar headline reads, “Businesses fear costly backlash from new religious freedom law.” 

The NCAA, Salesforce, Angie’s List and the gaming convention Gen Con are all seriously reconsidering their business relationships with Indiana. George Takei has called for a boycott. And don’t expect Apple to be investing in Indiana anytime soon.

When Rhode Island Speaker Nicholas Mattiello promised to focus on “jobs and the economy” rather than social issues he presented a false dichotomy. The economy does not exist in a socially neutral vacuum. 

Small government, GOP-style

Why it's OK for Indiana to make discrimination the law...

Marriage equality is good for business

379 U.S. Corporations Tell Supreme Court To Legalize Same-Sex Marriage Because It’s Best For Business

By Stephen D Foster Jr

Advocates for same-sex marriage just received a boat load of reinforcements in the case before the Supreme Court as 379 American corporations have entered the fight for marriage equality.

The staggering number of companies, which includes heavyweights like Nike, Aetna, Amazon, American Express, Apple, AT&T, Bank of America, Barclays, CBS, Citigroup, Coca-Cola, CIGNA, Delta, DirecTV, Facebook, eBay, General Mills, General Electric, Google, Hewlett-Packard, Johnson & Johnson, JPMorgan Chase, Microsoft, Marriot International, Moody’s, Northrop Grumman, Pepsi, Procter & Gamble, Prudential, Staples, Starbucks, Target, United Airlines, Verizon, Viacom, Visa, Wells Fargo, and Walt Disney among hundreds of others, all signed an amicus brief filed to the high court on Thursday.

The coming challenges to choice

7 Reproductive Rights Issues to Watch in 2015

by Nina Martin, ProPublica

To say abortion opponents are feeling fired up in 2015 would be a massive understatement.

In their first week back at work, congressional Republicans introduced a sweeping prohibition on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy (H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act), as well as bills that would ban sex-selective abortions, target funding for groups like Planned Parenthood, require abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges, and let doctors and nurses opt out of providing abortion care, even in emergencies.

In the states, where the 2014 elections gave Republicans control of two-thirds of state legislative chambers, incoming lawmakers also have supersized their abortion agendas.

But abortion is just one issue on the minds of activists focused on reproductive rights. There's also birth control, conscience clauses and personhood. Here are seven key trends and themes to watch for this year.