A Supremely Immoral Decision

Batting for bigotry. conservative members of the Supreme Court scored a victory on Friday, June 30, 2023; they decided that a Colorado web designer had the right under the First Amendment to deny services fo same-sex couples. Did the designer defend her views by stating that servicing gays conflicted with her religious faith? You betcha. Let us examine that stance more closely.

First, let’s agree that conservative judge Gorsuch has a point when he asserts that the government cannot force an individual to express views contrary to her conscience. But what about liberal judge Sotomayor’s point that this ruling could open a can of worms; one or more of these worms could be used to hook justice and send it flapping on dry land like a reeled-in fish. Colorado, after all, forbids discrimination by any business open to the public. What if the designer believed that accepting an interracial couple was against her conscience? In her vociferous dissent, Judge Sotomayor quoted a 1964 Supreme Court decision that asserted that motels and hotels had no right to refuse Black guests. Protecting the rights of one person while ignoring the rights of  others is hardly fair.

The designer said that servicing same-sex couples violated her rights to the free exercise of religion. I consider that view to be blasphemous. Why? I will now explain why I am convinced.s

Earth has been around for a long time (4 ½ billion years; life on Earth has been around for a long time as well (3 ½ billion years). Life was very primitive for a long time, until multicellular organisms appeared much later, during what has been called The Cambrian Explosion ( approximately half a billion  years ago). Compared to the time life has existed on Earth, human beings are relative  newcomers on the planet—compared to a single lifespan, our species ha been on the planet for a long time as well. Human history has existed for six thousand years or so; the last major cognitive development in the human brain is estimated to have occurred 100,000 years ago. Humans have been hunter gatherers for over 90% of this time; and eons before that as well, albeit in more primitive form. (Many human characteristics, such as the Fight or Flight response, are anachronistic today; genetic evolution is, however, slow).

There is evidence of in-group cooperation; analysis of remains indicate that pre-historical people even took care of those who were handicapped. Cooperation between groups, however, was another matter. Competition for resources was fierce; members of other groups, vying for the same resources, easily became enemies. There is much evidence of ‘war wounds’ on the bones of pre-historic hunter gatherers.  Homo homini lupus, man is wolf to man, thus has a long pre-history as well. Except that man was wolf to humans in other hunter gathering groups.

Thus conflict and war are part of our genetic heritage as well. (If you don’t believe me, pick up and read a newspaper.)

A milestone happened in our species when humans began to settle down in agricultural communities. Civilization, with its many advantages, as well as some negative  aspects, began!

Something else began as well. With the advent of the written word, religion underwent a major change. Eventually the very core of religion became written down: that we should love our neighbor as ourselves. This was truly revolutionary.

This doctrine needed to evolve before it became what we know it to be today. For instance, the formulation in Leviticus; the ‘neighbor’ was first interpreted to be a member of one’s ethnic group. Only later, in the Talmud, was the neighbor defined to include the stranger. We are  thus commanded to love not only members of the ingroup, but members of the outgroup as well.

All major religions have a version of loving one’s neighbor, which included the stranger, the foreigner, those that are different.  Since human beings are still tribal by nature after the long period of existing as hunter gatherers, this takes some effort. It takes such an effort that the commandment remains largely unfulfilled today.

Now let us return to the Supreme Court decision. A young lady said she must refuse, on the basis of her religion, to provide services, which are open to the public, to a same-sex couple. She might be able to hide behind the First Amendment for protection, but not, I am certain, behind religion.

If it has been demonstrated that love between members of the same sex is possible—and the evidence is incontrovertible; same-sex couples fall under the rubric, ‘stranger’ in the commandment. If we are talking about love, who is she to judge? Ditto for the Supreme Court judges.

God is silent. I hold that the young lady is using God as a dummy to express her prejudices. This I call ‘folk religion' not religion. To hide behind religion is, in this case, blasphemous, since it goes against the core of all religions

The Supreme Court decision is, therefore,  an immoral one. A long history of discrimination might make many persons uncomfortable regarding same-sex unions, but the commandment demands that we leave our comfort zone and at least realize that objection to same-sex unions cannot be justified on the basis of religion. The conclusion of the Court opens the door to open discrimination, as mentioned previously.

Things are bad enough. The Supreme Court has just made matters worse.

Centuries ago, Augustine asserted, “Love, and do what you want.”  Good advice! (Unless, apparently, if the lover requests services from a blasphemous bigot).

Refusing services to a same-sex couple on the basis of religion is like criticizing an individual photon for being ‘lost in the stars’. Ridiculous!