"The Silliness -- and Clear and Present Danger -- of Today's SCOTUS: from the Daily Meditations by Matthew Fox (July 7, 2023)

 We are meditating on justice as a spiritual virtue and we are examining a particularly stunning action of the recent Supreme Court.  This court just passed a law saying it’s okay for a gay-hating religious believer who is a businessperson to deny a gay couple her service. 

But it turns out that the person named in the lawsuit, Stewart, never asked the plainiff for her services as a web-designer because he is not getting married and furthermore he is not gay.  He has stepped up ad said he never approached her since he himself is a web designer and would not need her services, and because he has been happily married to a woman for 15 years.

   Says one commentator:

Smith is so motivated by hatred of LGBTQ+ people that she invented an imaginary grievance, lied about it repeatedly through the various tiers of the court system, and eventually got license to deny service to a gay couple who doesn’t, technically, exist.*   Thus the Supreme Court, all decked out in its black finery and aristocratic self-importance, bathed in its solemnity and righteous black robes, took on this case without checking on whether the party involved was real or not.  Is this a Mickey Mouse supreme court or what?  Silliness, corruption, aristocracy (“let them eat cake”) and stupidity reign.   Six judges got suckered into legalizing a more-than-stupid precedent in their eagerness to support homophobia and religious prejudice.  Smith’s lawyers, demonstrating no shame (fascism rarely demonstrates either shame or a sense of humor), shrugged their shoulders: “No one should have to wait to be punished by the government to challenge an unjust law,” said one.    The conclusion?  It’s okay to invent a grievance and make up adversaries and go to certain courts and win.  Is this Supreme Court now a game, a political puppet show?  And those pulling the strings of six puppets?  I think we know.    What follows is neither humorous nor silly.  It is a dangerous “license to hate.” Can an atheist businessman refuse to serve Christians?  Can a liberal refuse to serve republicans, a Muslim refuse to serve Jews--or vice versa?  Can a gay busnessman refuse to serve (homophobic Christians?)  A slippery legal slope indeed. Said one legal scholar:  "This ruling blows a gaping hole in priior protections from discrimination" including race and religion and offers a "green light" to any business owners wanting to refuse service.  Where's the justice in a court like this?